CAR_Public/160930.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 196




                            Headlines


2015 VENTURES: Faces "Andrulat" Suit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act
3M CO: Faces "Bates" Suit Alleging AFFF Water Contamination
3M CO: McDivitt Law Files 2nd Contamination Class Action
ADVANCED COSMETIC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
AECOM: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Shareholders

AL HORNO LEAN: "Adonias" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
ALL HEART SENIOR: Accused by Buckley of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
AMERICAN REALTY: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
ARCELORMITTAL SA: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Securities Case Tossed

AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Christmas Island Boat Disaster
AVVO INC: First Amendment Protects Advertising Shakedown
BANCORP INC: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BANK OF AMERICA: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Manager Sues Over Overtime Pay

BHP BILLITON: Texas Gate Workers File Wage Class Action
BLACK LIVES: Sued for Inciting Racial Violence Against Police
BMO HARRIS: "Behrens" Suit Seeks Wages Under Collection Act
BP SOLAR: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CANADA: Brockville Jail Inmate Files Class Action Over Beatings

CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Tax on Foreign Home Buyers
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Deere Seeks Certification of Two Classes
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Landowners Sue Over Gas Drilling Royalties
CITY OF EAST CHICAGO: "Mabry" Suit Alleges Housing Contamination
COLORADO: ACLU Files Class Action Over Hepatitis C Treatment

CONOPCO INC: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in "Paulino" Suit
CORT BUSINESS: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
DALAMA PROTECTION: Faces "Haughton" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
DALLAS/FORTH WORTH INTERNATIONAL: "Frazier" Suit to Recover OT Pay
DIM SUM: Faces "Lin" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NJ Wage and Hour Law

DOOR AND WINDOW: Faces "Briseno" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
DUPONT: Australia Fails to Acknowledge US Toxic Foam Studies
EAST LA DIALYSIS: Caballero Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
ELBAR INC: "Correa" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
ELECTRONIC GAME: January 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Sued in Cal. Over Use of Consumer Report
EXPRESS ENERGY: "Crain" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
FACEBOOK INC: AP7 Files Class Action Over Share Dilution
FEDERAL EXPRESS: "Mitchell" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FIAT CHRYSLER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action

FIVE GUYS: Cert. of Assistant GMs Class Sought in "Isaac" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Krebsbach" Suit Over Defective Sunroofs
FORD MOTOR: Simmons Hanly Conroy Files Class Action in California
GARLOCK SEALING: December 9 Deadline Set to Vote on Settlement
GOOGLE INC: High Court Set to Address Privacy Class Action

HAMILTON PAINTING: "Rowe" Seeks Certification of Painters Class
HARRIS & HARRIS: Improperly Collected Medical Debt, Suit Says
HEINEN'S INC: Sued Over Illegal Sales Tax on Starbucks Coffee
HEWLETT PACKARD: Calif. Consumer Sues Over False Advertising
HOTWIRE INC: Armstrong Law's Bid to Certify to Be Heard Nov. 4

HOUSTON HOME: "Bass" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
INDIVIOR: Says Antitrust Suit Over Monosol Rx Drug Has No Merit
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Adversary Class Suit in Indiana
J.J. CARPET: Faces "Chiquillo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
JAGUAR ENERGY: "Blanton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Status in Talc Cancer Suit Sought
JP MORGAN: Faces "Hall" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of RESPA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Mortgage Class Action
KAS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Babyganics Claims
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Wins Prelim. OK of "McCarter" Class Settlement

KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Wins Prelim. OK of "Scehura" Class Settlement
LAND O'LAKES: Deal Over Dairy Price-Fixing Conspiracy Finalized
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
MECH-TECH INSTITUTE: Four Men Sue Over False Advertisements
MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Hernandez" Suit

MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Politicians to Probe Sinking Tower
MISONIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
MGT CAPITAL: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Merger with DVasive, Inc.
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MOSAIC: Faces Class Actions in Florida Over Gypstacks

MOSAIC CO: Class Action Suit Filed Over Contaminated Water
MOTION PICTURE: Seeks Dismissal of Rating System Class Action
MSN MARKETING: "Alan" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Miami Ret. Trust Files Appeal in Del. S.C.
NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Class Action Mulled Over Violent Protests

NOODLES & COMPANY: Class Action Filed Over Credit Card Breach
OHIO: Disability Wait List for HCBS May Violate ADA, Suit Claims
PETSMART INC: Accused by Breingan of Not Giving Proper Services
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Chapstick Natural Label
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Hodge Seeks Damages Over Vehicular Accident

PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules Smoker Failed Citizenship Requirements
PLANT ENGINEERING: Certification of Class Sought in "Ortega" Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
POR ENTERPRISES: Faces FLSA Breach Suit in Alabama
POWER SOLUTIONS: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

PREIT ASSOCIATES: "Badger" Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility
PTX INDUSTRIES: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Roofing Products
QUEENSLAND: Indigenous People Suit Sets National Precedent
RED GRANITE: Minister Says Husam Musa's Class Action Baseless
ROCKWELL INT'L: April 28, 2017 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
ROYAL CROWN: Court OKs 3rd Party Funding w/o Notice to Defendants
SALINAS ECUADORIAN: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SAMUEL JEWELERS: "Jafari" Seeks to Recoup Pay Under Labor Code
SANTA FE, NM: Inmates Sue Over Delayed Conditions of Release

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LANCASTER: Issa Seeks ELL Class Certification
SHINE LAWYERS: Faces Risk of Shareholder Class Action
SIRIUS XM: Aware of Potential Class Action Lawsuit
SIZMEK INC: Faces "Burns" Lawsuit Over Sale to Vector Capital
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit

SOUTHERN PACPIZZA: Tony Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Ayeni" Securities Suit Over Drug
STATE FARM: Racketeering Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
TESLA MOTORS: Shareholders Suits Hamper SolarCity Merger
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural Label"

TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Policyholders File Bad Faith Insurance Suit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Frausto Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis Outbreak
TRUMP PAC: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
TWITTER INC: "Shenwick" Sues Over Share Price Drop

TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lamour Amends Bid to Certify Class of Drivers
UBER: Joins Betterment to Provide IRAs
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Certifies Class in Mental Health Case
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Chides Attorneys Over Late Forum Shopping

UNITED STATES: Patients Await Disability Benefits Settlement
UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Court Snobs Fitzgerald's Bid to Certify Class
VERIZON WIRELESS: Robocall Class Action Suits Filed in Calif.
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Final Court Hearing Set for Oct. 18
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ex-Chief Aware of Emissions Cheating, Data Shows

WAL-MART: Mexican Unit Bribery Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Accounts Scandal
WELLS FARGO: Customers May Never See Their Day in Court
WELLS FARGO: Former Employees File Class Action Over Sale Quotas
WHIRPOOL CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline for Filing Settlement Claims

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
YAHOO INC: Faces Class Action Over Massive 2014 Hacking

* 75% of Bank Account Agreements Include Arbitration Clauses
* Collective Cost of Late Fees Totals $286MM, Research Shows
* Defense Attorney Says Companies Must Improve Customer Outreach


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intervenors OK'd to Appear in "Steinebach"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Review Order Denying Dismissal Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. 2 Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Policies Exhausted as of July 2015
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Wins Partial Summary Judgment vs. Wyman

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial in Suit vs. RJ Reynolds Directed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed's Summary Judgment Bid in "George" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Reverses Ruling on Switchgear Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valid Assignment of Insurance Rights to Viking
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant of Summary Judgment in "Mitchell" Urged

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCS' Bid to Dismiss "Richardson" Partially OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cedarcroft Wins Summary Judgment in "Umphrey"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Bozeman" to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sister Sues Companies Over Sibling's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Tightens Reins on Proving Causation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA To Remove Asbestos From New York Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Holdings Estimation Motion Filed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machinist Family Gets New Shot at Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother, Son Launch Asbestosis Lawsuit in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Farmer Dies of Asbestos-Related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Issues Warning Over Asbestos Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perth Man Dies After Asbestos Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Affirms Prohibition Notice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Won't Be Fined for Firefighter Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More WorkSafe Violations for B.C. Contractor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Says Tyler Pipe Trust Not Paying Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children in Tongan Hospital Inhaling Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Case Ruling Could Have Ripple Effect



                            *********

2015 VENTURES: Faces "Andrulat" Suit Under FLSA, SC Wages Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCHUYLER ANDRULAT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 2015 VENTURES, LLC d/b/a
STILETTO'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, f/k/a JAGUAR'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, and
ROBERT HILLS, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03183-DCN (D.S.C.,
September 21, 2016), claims that Defendants have misclassified
their exotic dancers as independent contractors in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act.

Defendant Ventures does business as Stiletto's Gentlemen's Club,
an adult entertainment club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Rothstein, Esq.
     ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA
     1312 Augusta Street
     Greenville, SC 29605
     Phone: (864) 232-5870
     Fax: (864) 241-1386
     Email: drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     Matthew Thomson, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     Fax: (617) 994-5801
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
            mthomson@llrlaw.com


3M CO: Faces "Bates" Suit Alleging AFFF Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hanah Bates; Michael S. Bridges; Ann Marie Kuter; Kelley Liott;
Lynda Mills, as parent and natural guardian of S.M., a minor;
Jennifer Rock; and Carolyn Sippel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The 3M Company
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); Angus Fire; the
Ansul Company; Buckeye Fire Protection Company; Chemguard; and
National Foam, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04961-PBT (E.D. Pa.,
September 15, 2016), seeks medical monitoring and damages because
Defendants allegedly contaminated their drinking water with
Aqueous Film Forming Foam.

The Defendants manufacture fire suppression products, including
AFFF that contained fluorocarbon surfactants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John M. Broaddus, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG
     200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205
     Woodland Falls Corporate Park
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
     Phone: 856-755-1115
     Fax: 856-755-1995
     E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com

        - and -

     Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
     Donald A. Soutar, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 558-5500
     Fax: (212) 344-5461


3M CO: McDivitt Law Files 2nd Contamination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Rodgers, writing for The Gazette, reports that a Colorado
Springs law firm filed the second lawsuit targeting the
manufacturers of a firefighting foam believed to have contaminated
drinking water in Security, Widefield and Fountain.

McDivitt Law Firm capped a month-long campaign to woo clients by
filing a federal lawsuit on September 22 seeking class-action
status on behalf of thousands of people whose tap water comes from
the fouled Widefield aquifer.

The case largely mirrors another federal class-action lawsuit
filed by a Denver law firm targeting 3M, Ansul Foam of Wisconsin
and National Foam of Pennsylvania.

McDivitt's suit also named those companies as defendants, but it
added three more: Chemguard of Wisconsin, as well as Angus Fire
and Buckeye Fire Equipment Co., which have offices in North
Carolina.

The latest suit alleges those companies knew, or should have
known, the dangers of a firefighting foam used for years at
Peterson Air Force Base, the Colorado Springs Airport and Fort
Carson. And it claims the companies opted to profit from the foam,
rather than warn the military or residents of its dangers.

The pattern repeated itself for years, the suit alleges, all while
the toxic chemicals pooled in the blood of residents living
downstream.

All nine plaintiffs have elevated blood levels of perfluorinated
compounds -- the key ingredient in the military's firefighting
foam. The chemicals have been associated with a host of ailments,
including kidney and testicular cancers and thyroid disease.

"They are worried to death," said Mike McDivitt, the firm's
founder. "They're carting water in to use -- they still are."

McDivitt said about 1,000 people have retained his firm, and many
more residents have expressed interest. His firm is partnering
with a New York firm, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, which specializes in
environmental law cases.

The residents want the companies to establish a medical monitoring
program to help detect and better treat diseases that might be
caused by the chemicals. The suit also seeks punitive damages, as
well as a testing program for water across the Fountain watershed.

Most companies did not return after-hours calls or emails from The
Gazette seeking comment. An Ansul Foam representative said the
company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

A 3M representative said he had not seen the latest lawsuit.
However, a previous statement by a 3M attorney said 3M would
"vigorously" defend itself against the lawsuit -- adding that the
foam saves lives and that the earlier claims "lacked merit."

Law experts who study class-action lawsuits, however, said the
plaintiffs in the Pikes Peak region are a long way from any
possible payday.

The most difficult struggle may be proving a simple point: that
the contaminated well water caused them harm worthy of a court
award, said Tom Metzloff, a professor at North Carolina's Duke Law
School who studies class-action lawsuits.

"One of the biggest problems that comes up right away is
causation," he said. "These cases are often significantly fought
over by experts."

Metzloff said the chemical manufacturers have a series of defenses
they can use, including a possible use of the "military contractor
defense."

That shields manufacturers from liability for products built under
government contract, and could cover the firefighting foam, which
was built to a military specification that's patented by the Navy.

One of its first legal hurdles is whether the plaintiffs south of
Colorado Springs can sue as a group or as individuals.

Both lawsuits have sought class-action status, which calls for a
handful of people to represent a large group of residents affected
by the same problem and living in the same area. A judge must
approve that type of status for the cases to proceed.

Federal judges routinely combine similar class-action suits filed
by different law firms when they involve the same general area and
complaints, said David Marcus, a University of Arizona law
professor who specializes in class-action cases. In that case, a
judge would appoint attorneys for the group.

It's also possible the Colorado cases will be argued outside of
the state, Metzloff said. That's because several similar cases
over foam contamination have been filed around the country. All of
them might land before a multi-district federal court panel, which
could combine them into a single case to be heard by a single
judge.

"There's real potential this could be sent to multi-district
litigation," Metzloff said.


ADVANCED COSMETIC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Castro" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO CASTRO, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. ADVANCED COSMETIC RESEARCH LABORATORIES,
INc., an active California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. BC634270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 16,
2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
employees minimum wages for all hours worked, to compensate for
overtime work, to provide meal periods, to provide rest periods,
to provide proper wage statements, and to pay all wages owed to
terminated or separated employees in a timely manner.

Advanced Cosmetic Research Laboratories, Inc., is an active
California corporation headquartered in Chatsworth, California.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities,
relationships and extent of participation in the alleged conduct
of the Doe Defendants.  The Defendants are engaged in the business
of production, distribution, and sale of cosmetic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
          5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876-9627
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik.hacopian@gmail.com


AECOM: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
class action complaint was filed against AECOM in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of AECOM
securities between February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016, for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
AECOM's officers and directors. AECOM, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in designing, building, financing, and
operating infrastructure assets worldwide.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/aecom

AECOM Accused of Overstating the Benefits of Its Acquisition

According to the complaint, on February 10, 2015, AECOM submitted
a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
stating "We are pleased with our organic growth as we focus on the
successful integration of our acquisition of URS [Corp]." The
company further touted that it started the year by delivering
strong free cash flow and reported revenue of $4.19 billion for
the quarter, compared to revenue of $1.95 billion for the same
period in the prior year. AECOM submitted several subsequent
filings reiterating the information previously announced and
reporting strong financial and operating results, again
emphasizing that the company's strong cash flow and debt reduction
kept it on track with its capital allocation priorities. The
complaint alleges, however, that AECOM officials failed to
disclose that AECOM: (i) engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
business practices; (ii) lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (iii) overstated the benefits of the URS
acquisition; and (iv) overstated the company's free cash flow per
share.

On August 16, 2016, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report on AECOM stating that Spruce had analyzed the company's
recent financial results and condition and believed that AECOM's
stock is worth approximately 33%-45% less than its current price.
The report cited AECOM management's "misaligned incentive
structure," noting that AECOM's Chief Executive Officer's $18
million compensation in 2015 was heavily tied to the company's
aggressive interpretation of its free cash flow per share. The
report further noted that AECOM had changed (and inflated) its
earnings per share definition three times since selling investors
on the URS acquisition, and that free cash flow was overstated by
approximately 90% in the last twelve months ending June 30. On
this news, AECOM stock fell $1.65 per share, or 4.7%, to close at
$33.44 per share on August 16, 2016.

                 AECOM Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


AL HORNO LEAN: "Adonias" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceferino Adonias (AKA Steven Diaz), German Mercenario Velazquez,
Antonio Aranda and Hermenegildo Mercenario Velazquez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Al
Horno Lean Mexican Kitchen Inc. (d/b/a Al Horno Lean Mexican
Kitchen), Al Horno Lean Mexican 57, Inc. (d/b/a Al Horno Lean
Mexican Kitchen) and Chris Pizzimenti, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07266, (S.D. N.Y., September 16, 2016), seeks overtime wages,
unpaid wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under
New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants
located at 417 West 47th Street, New York, New York 10036 and at
1089 Second Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, both under the name
Al Horno Lean Mexican Kitchen where Plaintiffs were primarily
employed as delivery workers, working in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Defendants failed to maintain
accurate record-keeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium as
well as the required spread of hours pay for any day in which they
worked over 10 hours per day.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL HEART SENIOR: Accused by Buckley of Not Paying OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BUCKLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALL HEART SENIOR CARE, L.L.C., a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 8:16-cv-02676-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
September 16, 2016), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
health care workers overtime premiums for hours worked over 40
each week.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Florida, All Heart Senior Care, L.L.C.,
is a Florida limited liability company doing business since 2009.
The Company provides healthcare services to its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 219-4529
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3487
          E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com
                  bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


AMERICAN REALTY: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STUART SIMPSON, Individually on Behalf of
Himself and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL -
RETAIL CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.

LESLIE D. MICHELSON, EDWARD G.
RENDELL, and EDWARD M. WEIL, JR.,
Defendants,

and

AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL - RETAIL
CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.
Nominal Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-03970-ALC


NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS
OF COMMON STOCK OF AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL - RETAIL CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC. ("RCA" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF SEPTEMBER 13 2016,
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, SUCCESSORS,
PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, HEIRS, ASSIGNS OR TRANSFEREES,
IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON
BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER ANY OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF
THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER
BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS AND ADEQUACY
OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING "PLAINTIFF'S RELEASED
CLAIMS" (AS DEFINED BELOW IN SECTION V).

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION" AND NO
INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED AS A RESULT
OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

IF YOU HOLD RCA COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE
PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.


I. THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the pendency of the
above-captioned individual and shareholder derivative
litigation (the "Action") and a proposed settlement ("Settlement")
of the Action.  This Notice also informs you of your right to
participate in a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held
before this Court on November 9, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New
York, NY 10007 in Courtroom 1306, to (i) determine whether the
proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions
provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
September 7, 2016 ("Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of RCA and its stockholders;
(ii) determine whether to approve Plaintiff's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses; (iii) hear and rule on any
objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Final Order
and Judgment, and Plaintiff's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; (iv) determine whether the Court
should enter the Final Order and Judgment, which would dismiss
with prejudice the Action and
release Plaintiff's Released Claims (as defined below) and
Defendants' Released Claims (as defined below); and (v) rule on
such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If the Court approves the Settlement, Plaintiff and the Defendants
(the "Parties") will ask the Court to enter a Final Order and
Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice on the merits.

This Notice describes the rights you may have under the proposed
Settlement and what steps you may, but are not required
to, take in relation to the proposed Settlement.

                            * * * * *

THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE
COURT.  IT IS BASED ON SUMMARY STATEMENTS BY THE PARTIES AND
SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE
COURT AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY
ANY OF THE PARTIES.

II. BACKGROUND OF THE LAWSUIT
On April 29, 2016, RCA filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") soliciting RCA stockholders to approve nine
amendments to RCA's Articles of Amendment and Restatement
(the "Charter") at the Annual Meeting of stockholders originally
scheduled for June 29, 2016 (the "Annual Meeting").  The proposed
Charter amendments included two proposals - Proposal No. 8,
"Approval of Proposed Amendments to the Charter to Remove or
Revise Certain Provisions Regarding the Conduct of Company
Business," and Proposal No. 11, "Approval of Proposed Amendments
to the Charter to Remove or Revise Provisions Relating to our
Sponsor and Advisor and their Affiliates" (the "Proposed
Amendments").

On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Verified Individual and
Shareholder Derivative Complaint (the "Complaint") alleging that
by disseminating the Proxy and seeking approval of the Proposed
Amendments, the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act by (1) failing to disclose (a) the effects
of the Proposed Amendments on stockholders rights in the event of
a "roll-up" transaction, and (b) that Defendants are currently
planning a roll-up transaction; and (2) unlawfully "bundling"
multiple unrelated items within the two Proposed Amendments.

On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
thereof (the "Motion") to enjoin the stockholder vote at the
Annual Meeting until and unless Defendants cured the allegedly
materially misleading and deficient Proxy and unbundled the
Proposed Amendments.

On June 2, 2016, the Court entered an order setting a hearing on
the Motion for June 13, 2016, and instructing Defendants'
counsel to serve answering papers no later than 5:00 p.m. on
June 9, 2016.

On June 2, 2016, the Parties began arm's-length discussions
regarding potential grounds to resolve the Action.

On June 8, 2016, the Parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") containing the terms for the Parties'
agreement-in-principle to settle the Action. The MOU provided
that, in consideration for the full and final settlement and
release of all Plaintiff's Released Claims and the dismissal with
prejudice of the Action, Defendants would withdraw the Proposed
Amendments from consideration at the Company's Annual Meeting, and
not seek to modify the Company's Charter to effectuate the
Proposed Amendments in the future without seeking stockholder
approval.

On June 9, 2016, Defendants filed with the SEC Definitive
Additional Materials on Schedule 14A supplementing the Proxy
(the "Supplemental Proxy").  The Supplemental Proxy withdrew the
Proposed Amendments from stockholder consideration at RCA's
annual meeting.

On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff withdrew his Motion and notified the
Court that the Parties had come to an agreement-in-principle
to settle the Action pursuant to the MOU.

On June 10, 2016, the Court adjourned the hearing on Plaintiff's
Motion.

On September 7, 2016, the Parties executed the Stipulation,
documenting the terms of the Settlement.

III. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS

In consideration for the proposed Settlement and dismissal with
prejudice of the Action and the releases provided herein, and
as a result of the filing and prosecution of the Action and after
arm's-length negotiations with counsel for Plaintiff, in
conjunction with the proposed Settlement, Defendants agreed to
withdraw and did withdraw the Proposed Amendments from stockholder
consideration at the Annual Meeting, and Defendants agreed not to
seek to modify the Company's Charter to effectuate the Proposed
Amendments in the future without seeking stockholder approval.

IV. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, through his counsel, states that Plaintiff's counsel
has completed a thorough investigation of the claims and
allegations asserted in the Action, as well as the underlying
events relevant to those claims and allegations.  In connection
with their investigation, Plaintiff's counsel reviewed publicly-
available documents filed with the SEC and interviewed a former
independent director of an affiliated company who provided
additional information concerning Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's
counsel also states that Plaintiff's counsel performed additional
factual and legal research concerning the validity of Plaintiff's
claims and other claims that could have arisen from the filing of
the Proxy.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel believe that
Plaintiff's claims have legal merit, and the entry by Plaintiff
into the Stipulation is not an admission as to the lack of merit
of any claims asserted in the Action, and that Plaintiff entered
into the proposed Settlement set forth in the Stipulation only to
secure substantial relief for RCA and RCA stockholders and to
eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further litigation, and
because they believe that withdrawing the Proposed Amendments from
stockholder consideration provided RCA and RCA stockholders with
substantial benefits.  In agreeing to the proposed Settlement,
Plaintiff and his counsel considered: (i) the substantial benefits
to RCA and RCA stockholders from the
proposed Settlement; (ii) the attendant risks of continued
litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome of the Action; (iii)
the probability of success on the merits based on the allegations
contained in the Action; and (iv) the desirability of permitting
the proposed Settlement to be consummated according to its terms.
Plaintiff and his counsel believe that the proposed Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiff, RCA and RCA
stockholders.

Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage to Plaintiff or RCA,
deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, deny that they committed
any violation of law, deny that the Proxy or any other public
disclosures were in any way deficient, deny that they acted
improperly in any way, believe that they acted properly at all
times, believe the Action has no merit, and maintain that they
have committed no disclosure or bundling violations, but entered
into the proposed Settlement solely because they considered it
desirable that the Action be settled and dismissed with prejudice
in order to, among other things, eliminate the burden,
inconvenience, expense, risk, and distraction of further
litigation, finally put to rest and terminate all the claims that
were or could have been asserted against Defendants in the Action,
and thereby permit the stockholder vote on the other proposed
items not challenged by Plaintiff to proceed without risk of
injunctive or other relief.

V. RELEASES
Under the terms of the proposed Settlement, Plaintiff agrees to
the complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice on the
merits, settlement and release of, and a permanent injunction
barring, the Released Parties (as defined below) of any and all
manner of claims, demands, rights, liabilities, losses,
obligations, duties, costs, debts, expenses, interest, penalties,
sanctions, fees, attorneys' fees, actions, potential actions,
causes of action, suits, agreements, judgments, decrees, matters,
issues and controversies of any kind, nature or description
whatsoever, whether known or unknown (including "Unknown Claims"),
disclosed or undisclosed, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or not
apparent, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or not matured,
suspected or unsuspected, liquidated or not
liquidated, fixed or contingent, that any Releasing Persons (as
defined below) may have asserted derivatively or that Plaintiff
may have asserted directly in his individual capacity based on
Plaintiff's ownership of RCA common stock, against any of the
Released Parties, whether based on state, local, foreign, federal,
statutory, regulatory, common or other law or rule (including, but
not limited to, any claims under federal securities laws or state
disclosure law or any claims that could be asserted derivatively
on behalf of RCA), which, now or hereafter, are based upon, arise
out of, relate in any way to, or involve, directly or indirectly,
(i) the Proposed Amendments, (ii) the fiduciary obligations, if
any, of the Released Parties in connection with the Proposed
Amendments, (iii) any of
the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint; and (iv) except as
otherwise provided in the Stipulation, the administration or
distribution of the Settlement; provided, however, that (i)
plaintiff's released claims shall not include the right to enforce
the Stipulation or the Settlement and (ii) plaintiff's released
claims shall not release any claims that may arise in connection
with proposed amendments of the Company's Charter submitted to
stockholders after June 8, 2016 ("Plaintiff's Released Claims").

Reciprocally, under the terms of the proposed Settlement,
Defendants agree to fully, finally, and forever release,
relinquish, settle, extinguish, dismiss with prejudice, and
discharge Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel from all claims
(including "Unknown Claims") arising out of, relating to, or in
connection with, the institution, prosecution, assertion,
settlement or resolution of the Action or the Released Claims
("Defendants' Released Claims").

"Released Parties" means the Defendants and their heirs, trusts,
trustees, executors, estates, administrators, beneficiaries,
distributees, agents, employees, fiduciaries, partners, control
persons, partnerships, joint ventures, member firms, limited
liability companies, corporations, parents, subsidiaries,
divisions, affiliates, associated entities, shareholders,
principals, officers, managers, directors, managing directors,
members, managing members, managing agents, predecessors,
predecessors-in-interest, successors, successors-in-interest, and
assigns.

"Releasing Persons" means (i) in the case of Plaintiff's Released
Claims, Plaintiff, RCA or any RCA stockholder that has the
standing or capacity to assert, prosecute or maintain on behalf of
RCA any of the Plaintiff's Released Claims, and (ii) in the case
of Defendants' Released Claims, the Defendants.

"Unknown Claims" means any Plaintiff's Released Claims or
Defendants' Released Claims that the Releasing Persons do not
know of or suspect to exist in their favor at the time of the
release of the Released Parties or the release of Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's counsel, respectively, including claims that, if known
by them, might have affected their decision to settle the Action,
or might have affected their decision not to object to the
proposed Settlement.  With respect to any and all Plaintiff's
Released Claims or Defendants' Released Claims, the Parties
stipulate and agree that, upon the effective date of the
Settlement, the Parties expressly waive the provisions, rights and
benefits conferred by or under California Civil Code section 1542,
or any other law of the United States or any state or territory of
the United States, or principle of common law that is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to Sec 1542, which provides
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR
DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME
OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

The Parties acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts in
addition to or different from those now known or believed to be
true by them, with respect to the subject matter of Plaintiff's
Released Claims and Defendants' Released Claims, but it is the
intention of the Releasing Persons to completely, fully, finally,
and forever compromise, settle, release, discharge, relinquish and
extinguish any and all Plaintiff's Released Claims and Defendants'
Released Claims, known or unknown, suspect or unsuspected,
contingent or absolute, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or
unapparent, which do now exist, or heretofore existed, or may
hereafter exist, and without regard to the subsequent discovery of
additional or different facts.  The Parties acknowledge that the
foregoing waiver was separately
bargained for and is an integral element of the Settlement, and
was relied upon by each and all of the Defendants in entering into
the Settlement.

VI. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
The Court has scheduled the Settlement Hearing to be held in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
New York, NY 10007 in Courtroom 1306 at the time identified in
Section I above to: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement
of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of RCA and its stockholders; (ii) determine whether to
approve Plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses; (iii) hear and rule on any objections to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Final Order and Judgment, and
Plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses; (iv) determine whether the Court should enter the Final
Order and Judgment, which would dismiss with prejudice the Action
and release Plaintiff's
Released Claims and Defendants' Released Claims; and (v) rule on
such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Court may postpone, reschedule or adjourn the Settlement
Hearing without further notice to RCA or RCA stockholders.
The Court also has reserved the right to approve the Stipulation
and the proposed Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing
with such modification(s) as may be consented to by the Parties
and without further notice to RCA or RCA stockholders.

VII. YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAR AND OBJECT
Any RCA stockholder who owns shares as of September 13, 2016 and
who continues to hold such shares and who objects to
any aspect of the proposed Settlement, entry of the Final Order
and Judgment, and/or Plaintiff's counsel's application for payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses, or who otherwise wishes to be
heard, may (but need not) appear in person or by his, her, or its
attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present evidence or
argument that may be proper and relevant; provided, however, that,
except for good cause shown, no RCA stockholder shall be heard or
entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of
the proposed Settlement, or if approved, the judgment to be
entered thereon, and no papers or brief submitted by any RCA
stockholder shall be received and considered by the Court unless
not later than October 26, 2016, such stockholder files with the
Court and serves upon all of the counsel listed below, at the
addresses listed below, the following: (a) a written statement
identifying such stockholder's name,
address, and telephone number, and, if represented by counsel, the
name, address, and telephone number of counsel; (b) proof of
current ownership of RCA common stock, including the number of
shares of RCA common stock owned by the stockholder and the
date or dates of purchase; (c) a detailed written statement
explaining the stockholder's objection and the reasons for such
objection; and (d) any documentation in support of such objection
that the stockholder desires the Court to consider. If the
stockholder wishes to appear at the Settlement Hearing, he, she,
or it must also include a statement of intention to appear at the
Settlement Hearing.

Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse


500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Court overseeing the Action

Daniel Albert
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Counsel for Plaintiff

Bradley Bobroff
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299
Counsel for Defendants

Any person or entity who fails to object in the manner provided
above shall be deemed to have waived such objection
(including the right to appeal), and absent good cause found by
the Court shall forever be barred from making any such objection
in the Action contesting any aspect of the Settlement, but shall
otherwise be bound by the Final Order and Judgment to be entered
and the releases to be given.

VIII. FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
If the proposed Settlement is approved by the Court following the
Settlement Hearing as fair, reasonable, and adequate to
RCA and its stockholders, the Parties will jointly request that
the Court enter a Final Order and Judgment which will, among other
things: (i) determine that the requirements of due process have
been satisfied in connection with the Notice provided to RCA
stockholders; (ii) approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to RCA and RCA stockholders; (iii) dismiss the Action
with prejudice on the merits as against any and all Defendants
without costs except as provided herein; (iv) release Defendants
and any other of the Released Parties from Plaintiff's Released
Claims, and release Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel from
Defendants' Released Claims; and (v) determine whether to approve
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in
connection with the prosecution of the Action as provided in
Section IX below.

IX. THE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
Plaintiff's counsel have not received any payment for their
services in pursuing the claims against Defendants in the Action,
nor have Plaintiff's counsel been reimbursed for their out-of-
pocket expenses.  Plaintiff intends to petition the Court at the
Settlement Hearing to approve the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with Plaintiff's prosecution of the Action by
RCA, its successor in interest, and/or the insurer(s) of RCA, or
its successor in interest, in an amount not to exceed in the
aggregate $750,000 (the "Fee and Expense Award").  The parties
negotiated the Fee and Expense Award at arm's-length and
Defendants have agreed not to oppose the Fee and Expense Award.
Approval of the Fee and Expense Award shall not be a precondition
to the Settlement or to dismissal with prejudice of the Action.

X. SCOPE OF THIS NOTICE
This Notice is not all-inclusive.  The references in this Notice
to the pleadings in the Action, the Stipulation and all other
papers or proceedings herein are only summaries and do not purport
to be comprehensive.  For the full details of the Action, the
claims that have been asserted in the Action and the terms and
conditions of the Settlement, including a complete copy of the
Stipulation and related Orders and proposed forms of Orders, you
are referred to the Court's instructions at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases.phpand the Company's public
filings.

XII. GENERAL INQUIRIES
General inquiries about the proposed Settlement should be directed
to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel as follows:

Daniel Albert
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT WITH GENERAL INQUIRIES.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
American Express did not violate antitrust laws by barring
merchants from asking customers to use one credit card over
another and steering consumers to another form of payment, a
federal appeals court said on Sept. 26.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan tossed out a lower-
court ruling, saying a Brooklyn judge erred in his February 2015
decision by focusing entirely on the interests of merchants rather
than cardholders.

It said American Express seemed to get its market share based on
its rewards programs and perceived prestige and "there is no
reason to intervene and disturb the present functioning of the
payment-card industry."  To do so, it said, likely would increase
the market shares of Visa and MasterCard at the expense of
American Express, whose card members tend to be more affluent than
its competitors' customers.

The written decision by a three-judge panel came in a lawsuit
brought in 2010 by the U.S. government and 17 states against
American Express, Visa and MasterCard.  The lawsuit said that
letting merchants steer customers to cards with lower fees for
merchants or to other preferred cards would benefit consumers and
increase incentives for networks to reduce card fees.

Visa and MasterCard entered into consent judgments in 2011 and
stopped their anti-steering rules for merchants while American
Express proceeded to trial.

At a seven-week juryless trial, the American Express Co. argued
its policies kept it competitive against the large payment
networks of Visa and MasterCard and their bank partners.  U.S.
District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled against American
Express, finding that the company was violating antitrust laws and
had reduced the incentive for credit card companies to compete on
price.  The judge blocked the company from enforcing its anti-
steering rules for a decade.

Central to the case were the fees merchants pay to process credit
and debit card transactions.  Those fees are largely hidden from
the average consumer but are a major cost for merchants that
accept credit cards.  Consumers sometimes indirectly pay more for
products and services as merchants pass the cost along.

The 2nd Circuit noted that credit card issuers sometimes may
increase the fee charged to merchants so they can boost cardholder
benefits and effectively decrease prices for cardholders.

The appeals court noted that a third of the nation's merchants
don't accept American Express cards as it described how businesses
decide which cards to accept based on their costs and what
benefits each card will provide.

It said the rules American Express imposed on merchants to prevent
them from steering customers to a particular form of payment
"prevent a merchant from seeking high-end clientele by advertising
acceptance of Amex cards but then, at the critical point of sale,
offering that clientele a discounted price for not using the Amex
card."

"In this case, we see no monopolistic danger in this purpose," the
2nd Circuit said.

Lawyers on both sides did not immediately return messages seeking
comment.

The 17 states that joined the lawsuit are Maryland, Missouri,
Vermont, Utah, Arizona, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa,
Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Tennessee, Montana, Nebraska,
Idaho and Rhode Island. The lawsuit had sought a finding that
American Express' actions violated anti-trust laws.


ARCELORMITTAL SA: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Securities Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. W. D'Silva -- adsilva@stikeman.com -- Alexander Rose, Esq.
-- ARose@stikeman.com -- and David Spence, Esq. --
dspence@stikeman.com -- of Stikeman Elliott LLP, in article for
Lexology, reports that in the proposed $1 billion class action
Rooney v. ArcelorMittal S.A., the Ontario Court of Appeal has
clarified that security holders who sell their securities in the
secondary market in connection with a take-over bid have no right
to pursue an action for misrepresentation under Section 131(1) of
the Securities Act (Ontario).  The question was one of first
impression before the Court.  Consistent with the overriding
policy objectives of the Securities Act, the Court confirmed that
security holders who sell their securities in the secondary market
cannot bypass the strict leave requirements, liability caps, and
other elements of Part XXIII.1 included by the Legislature as part
of the balance struck in creating statutory secondary market
liability for mis  representations.

Background to the Action

The plaintiffs were security holders of Baffinland Iron Mines
Corporation ("Baffinland").  On September 22, 2010, Baffinland was
the subject of an unsolicited take-over bid by Nunavut Iron Ore
Acquisition Inc. ("Nunavut Iron Ore").  ArcelorMittal S.A. then
made a friendly bid for Baffinland on its own behalf and
ultimately made a joint take-over bid with Nunavut Iron Ore.  That
joint take-over bid expired in February 2011.

The appellants commenced a proposed class action, naming
Baffinland, Nunavut Iron Ore and ArcelorMittal, along with a
number of related entities and individuals.  Amongst other things,
the appellants alleged that the relevant take-over bid circular
and related documents that were sent to Baffinland's security
holders and filed with the Ontario Securities Commission contained
misrepresentations about the business and affairs of Baffinland.
The appellants relied in part, on Section 131(1) of the Securities
Act, which provides as follows:

131. (1) Where a take-over bid circular sent to the security
holders of an offeree issuer as required by the regulations
related to Part XX, or any notice of change or variation in
respect of the circular, contains a misrepresentation, a security
holder may, without regard to whether the security holder relied
on the misrepresentation, elect to exercise a right of action for
rescission or damages against the offeror or a right of action for
damages . . .

The Decision of the Motions Judge

The defendants brought various motions to strike the plaintiffs'
statement of claim, including a motion to strike the claims of
security holders who sold their shares in the secondary market and
who sought to rely on Section 131(1) of the Securities Act. The
relief requested in respect of secondary market sellers was
granted.  The motions judge held that security holders who
transacted in the secondary market could not rely on Section
131(1) to assert a claim.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the motions judge.  The
appeal was dismissed.  Hourigan J.A., writing for the Court, held
that non-tendering security holders could not advance a Section
131(1) right of action for the following reasons:

   -- It would make no sense for security holders who sold their
shares in the secondary market to be given a right of rescission.
Therefore, Section 131(1), which gives a right of rescission, was
clearly not meant to include such security holders;

   -- The Legislature is presumed to have created a coherent and
consistent legislative scheme and Part XXIII.1 of the Securities
Act already extends a remedy to secondary market sellers for
misrepresentation in a take-over bid circular; and

   -- The aim of Section 131(1) is to assist sellers in making an
informed choice about whether to tender an offer to a bid, not to
make an informed decision about the sale of shares in the
secondary market.

In drafting Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, the Legislature
sought to include adequate protections to prevent unmeritorious
claims and inordinate delays in the prosecution of statutory
secondary market class actions.  It was for this reason that the
Legislature included a leave requirement in Part XXIII.1 and
capped liability.  By its decision, the Court of Appeal has made
it clear that proposed representative plaintiffs cannot use
Section 131(1) to bypass these restrictions.


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Christmas Island Boat Disaster
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Doherty, writing for The Guardian, reports that "complete
chaos" in communications between customs, the navy and government
officials in Canberra meant "at least 20 minutes were allowed to
pass by" before naval vessels were sent to rescue a stricken
asylum seeker boat off Christmas Island in 2010, resulting in the
deaths of 50 people, the New South Wales supreme court has heard.

On the morning of December 15, 2010, an asylum seeker boat -- Siev
221 -- unpowered and drifting off the coast of Christmas Island,
was dashed on to the island's cliffs by massive swells, breaking
the vessel up and throwing dozens of the 89 asylum seekers on
board into the sea.  Fifty people, including 15 children, died in
Australia's worst civil maritime disaster in more than a century.

Several of the survivors from the boat that day and others who
lost relatives in the disaster have launched a class action to sue
the Australian government, alleging that government agents were
negligent in failing to respond to the unfolding disaster quickly
enough.

In the supreme court before Justice Geoffrey Bellew on Sept. 26,
counsel for both sides paid tribute to naval and customs staff for
their "extraordinary bravery" in rescuing more than 40 asylum
seekers from the boat and the ocean, but disputed the speed with
which naval crews were dispatched to save the stricken vessel.

Siev ("suspected irregular entry vessel") 221 was first spotted in
rough seas off Christmas Island at 5:10 a.m. by witnesses onshore.
It was reported as being within 100 metres of the shore at 5:20
a.m.  Its engine failed at 6:40 a.m. and it was forced by waves on
to the rocks at 7:10 a.m.

For the plaintiffs, Michael Cranitch SC played to the court a
series of videos that showed the 30-metre wooden fishing vessel
being tossed by waves closer and closer to the island's rocks.

The videos showed the boat dangerously overcrowded, with
passengers clinging to a mast in the middle of the deck. Those on
board can be heard screaming as the boat is pushed closer to the
rocks, and then overwhelmed by the spray sent back from the
cliffs.

Watching the boat in severe distress, one person can be heard on
the video asking: "Where the fuck's the navy?"

"This is really bad on their part," another witness says.

In a later video, the first voice says: "I can't believe it, it's
going to end in disaster.  Where's the navy ship to take them
under tow?"

In the final video, the boat is thrown violently into the cliff
face, the screams of those onboard overwhelmed by the sound of the
wooden boat smashing into the rocks.

For the defense, Dr Andrew Bell SC objected to the "amateur
commentary" on the videos, but not the footage itself.

A series of phone calls was also played for the court that
revealed confusion among government officials about where the boat
was, and whether it might be another asylum seeker boat already
intercepted the day before.

Calls between officials on Christmas Island, Canberra, and naval
ships in the area revealed confusion over where "Rocky Point" was
on the north-eastern tip of Christmas Island, as well as whether
the boat sighted by residents was Siev 220, already under control
of the navy.

As phone calls were made between Christmas Island, the ships
offshore, and officials in Canberra, initially relaxed
communications became more frantic as the seriousness of the
disaster became apparent.

Initially, those on board the boat were said to "look like they
could be in a bit of trouble".  A later phone call reports "we've
got a major catastrophe here", with a witness reporting the boat
was "smashing against the cliffs".

The plaintiffs' statement of claim to the court argues that Siev
221 entered Australia's contiguous zone at 9pm on 14 December. It
sailed into Australian territorial waters at 2am and the country's
coastal waters at 5am.

Siev 221 entered Flying Fish Cove -- Australian internal waters --
at 6.40am, and broke apart half an hour later.

The plaintiffs argue that the Australian government knew, or
should have known, that the boat was unseaworthy, and that it had
a duty of care to assist those on board, particularly when it
became apparent the boat's distress presented a Solas -- safety of
life at sea -- situation.

Two ships, the ACV Triton and HMAS Pirie, were in a position to
assist and were not dispatched in time to save the stricken
vessel, the court was told.

After the alarm was raised about Siev 221's distress,
Mr. Cranitch said: "At least 20 minutes were allowed to pass by,
before Pirie responded, for reasons which are . . . obscure."

He said there had been "complete chaos" in the communications
systems the government had put in place.

Mr. Cranitch told the court that it was important to note that
asylum seekers who came to Australia by boat seeking protection
committed no crime by entering Australia.

It was illegal to "people smuggle", he said, to organize an asylum
seeker voyage, but that "doesn't mean that persons who are being
transported for the purpose of seeking protection are engaged in
any criminal activities.  In fact, quite the contrary."

Government policy aimed to save lives at sea by imposing
significant sanctions on those who arranged voyages, Mr. Cranitch
said.  "There are a range of offences for people smuggling, but
there are no criminal offences for those smuggled," he said.

For the defense, Mr. Bell told the court that the events of 15
December 2010 were a "great human tragedy" but that nothing could
reasonably have been done to avert the disaster.  "Hindsight is a
marvellous thing," he said.  "Difficult operational judgments had
to be made."

Mr. Bell disputed that government had been negligent in breaching
any duty of care.  He said naval vessels had been dispatched as
soon as practicable.

"There is nothing that could have been done in sufficient time to
avert any of the loss.  There were great acts of bravery and
professionalism on the part of naval officers."

In 2012, an eight-month inquest by the West Australian coroner
into the shipwreck criticized the federal government for failing
to provide rescue vessels on Christmas Island, despite the
likelihood a maritime tragedy would occur.

Coroner Alastair Hope said the Siev 221 disaster was "generally
foreseeable" and that a similar disaster remained an "ongoing risk
while these boats continue to travel to Christmas Island".

"I cannot accept that it would be beyond the capability of border
protection command to put in place a surveillance capability that
would be more effective than island residents coincidentally
looking out to sea."

Operation Sovereign Borders, instituted by the Coalition
government upon its election to power in 2013, has dramatically
slowed the rate of asylum seeker boats arriving in Australia
waters.

The last asylum seeker boat to reach Australian territory was in
May this year, when a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers reached
the Cocos Islands.

A people smuggling kingpin, Abraham Louhenapessy, known as Captain
Bram, was arrested in Jakarta on Sept. 23 after a joint operation
by Australian federal police and the Indonesian authorities.

It is the third time in a decade Bram has been arrested for people
smuggling.  He has been operating across the archipelago since
1999 and is believed to have arranged passage for more than 1,500
asylum seekers to Australia.

Bram is allegedly responsible for organizing an asylum seeker boat
that was intercepted by Australian border officials in May last
year and turned back to Indonesia, reportedly after Australian
government agents paid the crew between $5,000 and $6,000 each in
US currency.


AVVO INC: First Amendment Protects Advertising Shakedown
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen E. Rubin, Esq. -- Karen.Rubin@ThompsonHine.com -- of
Thompson Hine LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Avvo
has a First Amendment right to use a lawyer's publically-available
information to generate advertising revenue for itself, the
district court for the Northern District of Illinois held on
September 12.

As we've explained before, Avvo's business model works like this:

   * Avvo creates "profile pages" of individual lawyers using
     publically-available data;

   * then, Avvo collects a fee from lawyers to allow them to put
     ads for their practices on the profile pages of lawyers who
     don't pay the fee -- and the lawyer profiles where the paid
     ads appear are those of head-to-head competitors;

   * then, if you are the target of this shake-down tactic, you
     can pay a fee to keep Avvo from putting ads for your
     competitors on your profile page.

Nice, right?

"Non-commercial" speech

And it's all protected by strict constitutional scrutiny as non-
commercial free speech, said the district court, in dismissing the
putative class action of an Illinois lawyer who said that Avvo's
gambit violated state law by using his identity for commercial
purposes without his permission.

In granting Avvo's motion to dismiss, the district court said that

[T]o hold otherwise would lead to the unintended result that any
entity that publishes truthful newsworthy information about
individuals such as teachers, directors and other professionals,
such as a newspaper or yellow page directory, would risk civil
liability simply because it generated revenue from advertisements
placed by others in the same field.

The court viewed the Avvo site as a mere directory, and analogized
it to Sports Illustrated magazine: just like the magazine has
editorial content plus ads, the Avvo site has non-commercial
speech consisting of the lawyer profiles -- plus ads. The court
reasoned that just as ads do not convert the entire magazine into
commercial speech, Avvo's ads do not "turn the entire attorney
directory into commercial speech."

Money train

So the Avvo juggernaut rolls on. In August, reports Bob Ambrogi's
Law Sites, "a California lawyer dropped his putative class action
against Avvo after Avvo brought a motion to strike the complaint
under California's anti-SLAPP law." Avvo has also successfully
torpedoed a 2007 federal class action complaint in Washington and
a suit filed in Florida that was later transferred to Washington.

Ambrogi quotes Avvo's chief legal officer on the company's win:
"This is further validation that publishers like Avvo needn't
obtain the consent of their subjects prior to exercising their
First Amendment rights," said Josh King.

As I reported in February, Avvo has taken my Ohio bar information,
found a picture of me (though it is a gorgeous one, I must say),
and put up my profile, all without my permission. And there are
still four ads for other lawyers on my profile page so Avvo
continues to use my data to make money for itself. No phone book
or lawyer directory that I know of has Avvo's rapacious business
model. But as long as courts continue to see Avvo as a mere phone
book -- or worse, a magazine -- it will continue to expand its
empire at the expense of lawyers who won't play along.


BANCORP INC: December 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.
regarding In Re The Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE THE BANCORP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
CASE NO. 14-CV-0952 (SLR)

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

TO:  All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of The Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") during the
period from January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"):

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $17,500,000 in
cash and the implementation of certain corporate governance
reforms (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on December 15, 2016 at 3:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Sue L. Robinson at the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844
N. King Street, Courtroom 4B, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3568, to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated July 27, 2016 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Bancorp
Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10308, Dublin, OH 43017-
5908, 1-888-264-1308, info@bancorpsecuritieslitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BancorpSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 13,
2017.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 25,
2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than November 25, 2016, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

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

Bancorp Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10308
Dublin, OH 43017-5908
1-888-264-1308
info@bancorpsecuritieslitigation.com
www.BancorpSecuritiesLitigation.com

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

John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF
& WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-888-844-5862
classaction@srkw-law.com

By Order of the Court


BANK OF AMERICA: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN CLARK and SONYA ALEXANDER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-02228 (D. Nev., September 21,
2016), alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by Defendants by failing to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated employees for their pre-shift time spent booting up their
computers, logging into required computer software applications,
and reviewing work-related e-mails and other information.

Defendant operates and has operated "call centers" in Las Vegas
and other locations across the country where telephone-dedicated
employees -- customer service agents -- handle phone calls
regarding banking and investment services offered by Defendant to
its customers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Don Springmeyer, Esq.
     Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
     Justin C. Jones, Esq.
     WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
     3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor
     Las Vegas, NV 89120
     Phone: (702) 341-5200
     Fax: (702) 341-5300
     E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
             bschrager@wrslawyers.com
             jjones@wrslawyers.com

        - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Phone: (201) 630-0000
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Manager Sues Over Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Barry J. Waters -- bwaters@murthalaw.com -- of Murtha Cullina, in
an article for The National Law Review, reports that a Chicago-
based Barnes & Noble Cafe Manager filed a collective action on
September 20, 2016 in federal court, Southern District of New
York, seeking overtime compensation for herself and similarly
situated individuals who have worked as Cafe Managers "or in
comparable roles with different titles", for Barnes & Noble
anywhere in the United States. According to the complaint, Barnes
& Noble operates 640 retail stores in the 50 states. Brown v.
Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1:16-cv-07333-RA (S.D.N.Y. 2016).

The plaintiff, Kelly Brown, claims that Barnes & Noble
deliberately understaffs its Cafes, and strictly manages hours
worked by non-exempt Cafe employees to avoid paying them overtime.
As a consequence, the suit claims, Cafe Managers "spend the vast
majority of their time performing the same duties as non-exempt
employees, such as: making coffee and other beverages, preparing
food, serving customers, working the cash register and cleaning
the Cafe." Ms. Brown claims that Cafe Managers regularly work in
excess of forty hours and frequently work ten or more hours a day.

The lawsuit asserts that Cafe Managers are not exempt "executive"
employees because they: (1) are closely supervised by their Store
Managers and their work is specifically defined by corporate
policies and procedures; and (2) are not responsible for the
overall performance of the stores, or for coaching, evaluating,
hiring or firing employees.

To be exempt from overtime as an executive employee, the employee
must satisfy both the duties and the salary test:

Duties Test

The "executive" exemption requires that the employee:

1. regularly supervises two or more other employees;

2. has management as the primary duty of the position; and

3. has some real input into the job status of other employees
(such as hiring, work assignments, promotions and/or firing).

With regard to the first factor, the supervision must be a regular
part of the employee's job. The "two employees" requirement may be
met by supervising two full-time employees or the equivalent
number of part-time employees.

For the second factor, the FLSA Regulations set forth a list of
typical management duties, which, in addition to supervising
employees, includes:

   * interviewing, selecting, and training employees;
   * setting rates of pay and hours of work;
   * maintaining production or sales records (beyond the merely
     clerical);
   * appraising productivity; handling employee grievances or
     complaints, or disciplining employees;
   * determining work techniques;
   * planning the work;
   * apportioning work among employees;
   * determining the types of equipment to be used in performing
     work, or materials needed;
   * planning budgets for work;
   * monitoring work for legal or regulatory compliance; and
   * providing for safety and security of the workplace.

An employee may qualify as performing executive job duties even if
she performs a variety of "regular" job duties, such as preparing
food or drinks and/or serving customers. However, she must also
perform at least some of the tasks a "boss" would typically
perform, as set out. For example, the executive must have genuine
input into personnel matters. This does not require that the
employee be the final decision maker, but the employee's input
must be given "particular weight."

Salary Test

Ms. Brown's salary of $33,000 is above the current salary
threshold for exempt employees, $23,600. However, the new USDOL
Rule will raise the threshold to $47,476 effective December 1,
2016.

Recent Attorneys General Court Challenge to New Salary Test

On September 20, 2016, the same day that Ms. Brown filed her
lawsuit, officials from 21 U.S. states filed a lawsuit claiming
that the DOL acted unlawfully in issuing the new salary limit,
which the states assert will place a heavy burden on state
budgets. Hours after the states announced their lawsuit, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed a separate
challenge to the rule in the same federal court in Sherman, Texas.
Business groups and Republican officials say that the rule will
force employers to demote salaried workers to hourly positions and
create more part-time jobs.

Whether this challenge is sustained, the Barnes & Noble case
serves as a reminder that an employee must meet both the duties
and the salary tests to qualify for the exemption.

TAKE-AWAYS:

1. Regardless of which salary threshold applies, the "duties" test
remains unchallenged.

2. The restaurant and related-food and drink businesses are
targets for plaintiff class action lawyers.

3. Assistant Managers in larger operations have asserted claims
similar to Ms. Brown's here: that is, that they primarily do the
same work as the rank-and-file employees.

4. All employers should conduct regular audits of the jobs
currently classified as exempt. We are reminded again and again in
the case law that the employee's job title is not the a
significant factor in the outcome.

5. Non-compliance will result in exposure for the overtime pay
owed plus heavy penalties; double damages under federal and
Connecticut law, treble damages under Massachusetts law.


BHP BILLITON: Texas Gate Workers File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Australian mining giant BHP Billiton has been hit with a
class action over the alleged underpayment of gate workers based
at its shale oil operation in Texas after they were "magically"
converted from employees to independent contractors.

Former gate worker Linda Cox filed her claim seeking a jury trial
against Chapa Gate Guard Service, BHP Billion and BHP Billiton
Petroleum in Texas last week.

It is alleged the companies breached their obligations to up to 50
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act -- an act passed in
1938 to stamp out low wages and long hours in America.

The filing describes BHP as the ultimate employer under the act
and adds that BHP Billiton Petroleum was "actively engaged in the
conduct described" and "knowingly, wilfully and with reckless
disregard carried out its illegal pattern".

It is alleged the underpayment occurred over the past three years
at Dilworth Ranch, part of the Eagle Ford shale oil operation BHP
acquired through its purchase of Petrohawk Energy in 2012.  About
50 workers are expected to participate in the claim.

"Despite being classified as 'employees', defendants paid
plaintiff less than minimum wage," Ms. Cox's complaint alleges.

"Defendants also did not pay them overtime," the complaint adds.

Gate keeper

Ms. Cox says she was employed as a guard at one of about 25 gates
at the 3650-hectare Dilworth Ranch in Texas between October 2012
to July 2014 when she quit.

According to Ms. Cox's claim, the gate guards "were responsible
for opening and closing the gates for . . . BHP's truck drivers
and other security measures such as the completion gate access
logs".

"Plaintiff and the collective members were 'on call' throughout
the night 24 hours a day, seven days a week responding to heavy
oilfield truck and equipment at a gate," the claim says.

"Plaintiff and the collective members were directed to live on the
premises next to the gates at the Dilworth Ranch."

Ms. Cox alleges that until December 2015 workers were classified
as employees, but "magically" changed to independent contractors
even though the terms and conditions of work remained identical.

A spokesman for BHP said the company was reviewing the complaint
and will defend the claims when it is served.

"BHP Billiton is aware of this action, but it has not yet been
formally served on the company," the spokesman said.

Dealing with disputes

The claim comes as BHP Billiton revealed that it and its Brazil
joint venture partner Vale are facing $79 billion in potential
legal claims as a result of the deadly Samarco disaster last year.

The complaint also adds to BHP's list of industrial relations
stoushes that have included BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance's
long tussle with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy
Union after requesting workers in Queensland take a three-year pay
freeze along with concessions and a dispute with the Australian
Workers' Union over changed conditions for workers at its Bass
Strait operations.

It has also run into trouble with unions representing tug boat
workers in Port Hedland.

It is unclear whether a union is assisting Ms Cox with her
complaint.


BLACK LIVES: Sued for Inciting Racial Violence Against Police
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Chasmar, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
Dallas police sergeant has filed a federal lawsuit against Black
Lives Matter leaders, President Obama, George Soros and others for
allegedly inciting racial violence against law enforcement.

Sgt. Demetrick Pennie, president of the Dallas Fallen Officer
Foundation and a 17-year law enforcement veteran, filed the
amended complaint in federal court on Sept. 16 seeking between
$500 million and $1.5 billion, the Dallas Morning News reported.
The defendants named in the class-action suit also included
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, former Attorney
General Eric Holder, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, Al
Sharpton and the National Action Network, Malik Zulu Shabazz and
the New Black Panther Party.

The lawsuit said the defendants "stoked a race war" and
"repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in
threats and attacks" against police officers.  The complaint
singled out George Soros as "the financier of the BLM Defendants
and similar organizations with the goal of inciting a race war and
inciting and advocating deadly violence against law enforcement
officers, Caucasians, and Jews," Breitbart News reported.

Sgt. Pennie, who is black, is being represented by attorney Larry
Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch.
"Sergeant Pennie and I feel duty-bound to put ourselves forward to
seek an end to the incitement of violence against law enforcement
which has already resulted in the death of five police officers in
Dallas and the wounding of seven more, just in Texas alone," Mr.
Klayman said in a statement.  "The defendants, if not legally
reined in, are allegedly responsible, along with others, for
igniting a race war that will ultimately totally destroy the
freedoms that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us."

The lawsuit was filed hours before two Texas police officers were
shot while responding to a suicide call in Fort Worth, Fox News
reported.  Officers Xavier Serrano and Ray Azucena are both
expected to survive.


BMO HARRIS: "Behrens" Suit Seeks Wages Under Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
BYRON BEHRENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., the Defendant, Case
No. 2016CH12560 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Sep. 22, 2016), seeks to recover
all wages and compensation which Plaintiffs should have been
entitled to as employees pursuant to the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Through Defendant's alleged deliberate, intentional, systematic
and reoccurring business practice, the Plaintiffs were
intentionally mischaracterized as 1099 independent contractors and
not W-2 employees, who were compensated as independent contractors
and had to pay FICA taxes accordingly and did not receive the same
employment benefits granted to Defendant's other W-2 employees
performing sustainably similar job duties.

Through Defendant's deliberate, intentional, systematic and
reoccurring business practice referenced above, Defendant was
unjustly enriched to Plaintiffs' detriment by receiving benefits
such as the work performed by Plaintiffs without Defendant needing
to pay the employer portion of FICA taxes, make contributions to
Plaintiffs' retirement accounts or providing other employment
benefits such as insurance coverage.

BMO Harris Bank is a United States bank based in Chicago,
Illinois. It is a member of the Federal Reserve System and
operates branches in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Arizona,
Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, Florida, and Wisconsin.


BP SOLAR: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Birka-White Law Offices
and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, regarding the BP
Solar class action settlement.

You may be entitled to replacement solar panels and/or a new
inverter from a BP Solar Settlement

Para una notificacion en Espanol, llamar 1-844-360-2767 o visitar
nuestro website www.BPSolarSettlement.com

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against BP
Solar and Home Depot involving solar panels manufactured between
1999 and 2007 with an S-type junction box ("Class Panels").  You
may be entitled to benefits from a $45.33 million common fund or a
separate, $20 million claims-made settlement.

The lawsuit claims these panels are defective and prone to
junction box failures, which could cause burn marks at the
junction box, shattered glass, and be a potential fire hazard.
BP and Home Depot deny these claims.

Who's Included? The Settlement includes anyone in the United
States who: (1) purchased certain BP solar panels for installation
on a property, or (2) currently owns a property on which these
panels are installed and, in either case, who still owns some or
all of the BP solar panels.

The panels were sold through various distributors and retailers,
including but not limited to Solar Depot and Home Depot.

What does the Settlement provide? Subject to Court approval, a
$45.33 million fund will be created to pay for the removal and
replacement of a subset of Class Panels (Category 1), and to pay
administration, attorneys' fees and costs, and Class
Representative awards.  A separate $20 million fund will be
established for the remaining Class Panels (Category 2), which
have a lower failure rate.  Category 2 claimants will be entitled
to a free visual inspection to identify any failed panels,
replacement of failed panels, replacement of all panels if over
20% of panels have failed and, if not all panels are replaced, a
free inverter with arc fault detection.  Non-residential class
members with 400 or more Class Panels will be invited to
commercial negotiations.

Complete details are found on the website.

How can I receive benefits? You must file a claim to receive
benefits.  You can file a claim online at
www.BPSolarSettlement.com or call 1-844-360-2767.  Category 1
claims will be paid until the Fund is spent.  Category 2 claims
will last for three years after it starts or until the $20 million
fund is spent.

What are my rights? If you want to keep your right to sue the
Defendants yourself, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class by November 28, 2016.  If you exclude yourself you will not
receive benefits from the Settlement.  If you stay in the
Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by November 28,
2016.  If you do nothing, you will not receive any benefits but
you will still be bound by the Court's decisions.

The Court will hold a hearing on December 22, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
PST to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
for attorneys' fees of up to $11 million, plus reimbursement of
attorneys' costs and expenses up to $600,000. The motion for
attorneys' fees and costs and class representative service awards
will be posted on the website after they are filed.  You or your
own lawyer may appear at the hearing at your own expense.  This is
only a summary, so please visit the website for complete
information.


CANADA: Brockville Jail Inmate Files Class Action Over Beatings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Seymour, writing for Ottawa Sun, reports that an inmate
whose beating in the Brockville jail led a judge to question
whether it was time for a public inquiry into Ontario's jails has
filed a half-million-dollar lawsuit against the province.

In a statement of claim filed in August, Francis Jesse Deguire
alleged he had offered to sleep on the floor rather than be placed
in the cell with the violent offenders who beat him so severely
that he nearly lost one of his eyelids.

The 39-year-old carpenter and father of four had only four days of
a sentence for drunk driving left to serve when he alleges he was
thrown into metal beds, sinks and the floor.  He was also
repeatedly kicked in the face, back of the head, shoulder and back
during the April 29, 2014 assault.

The "prolonged assault" in "dorm two" occurred just minutes after
Mr. Deguire was placed in the cell, despite his pleas to
correctional officers that they put him in another dorm where he
felt safer, according to the statement of claim.

Mr. Deguire alleged he had offered to sleep on the floor in the
other dorm, as he had done during a previous stay at the jail, but
that request was refused by correctional officers, who told him
the dorm he wanted to stay in was full.

According to the statement of claim, Mr. Deguire described how
after he was placed in the cell, his three attackers asked him
about where he had come from and how long he'd be there.

When Mr. Deguire told them he'd be released in a couple of days
and wanted to keep to himself, one of the inmates wrapped his arm
around him while another slapped his genitals and told him that
they were going to "have fun tonight."  When Mr. Deguire nudged
them to move away, he was put in a headlock and attacked.

Mr. Deguire alleges it wasn't until a jail employee delivered the
meal trays that the assault stopped, even though it was being
recorded on video surveillance.

Correctional officers eventually showed up at the cell door, but
didn't enter.  Instead, they asked one of the inmates who
assaulted Mr. Deguire to bring him to the cell bars so he could be
removed, the statement of claim alleged.  By this time, the other
inmates had moved Mr. Deguire to the shower so correctional
officers couldn't see him.

Mr. Deguire was taken to the Brockville General Hospital where he
received 10 stitches to reattach his left eyelid.  Mr. Deguire
also suffered a laceration above his left eye.  X-rays were also
taken.

To add insult to injury, when Mr. Deguire was returned to the jail
about five hours later, he was placed in the dorm that he had
originally requested.  He was released from custody 72 hours
later.

Criminal charges were laid against the three men who attacked
Mr. Deguire.  The statement of claim alleges all three have since
pleaded guilty.

During the June sentencing hearing for attacker Kevin Cleroux,
Ontario Court Justice Peter Wright said the attack "raises serious
issues of safety, about the ability of correctional officers to
respond, their authority, training, planning and supervision."

Justice Wright said correctional officers were told someone was
being punched out, but didn't enter the cell.  Instead they were
told to "go away" and were not allowed into the dorm, Justice
Wright said.

"(The) Crown says you can't blame the authorities for not going
into a cell and being beaten up," said the judge.  "By the same
token, surely society -- the institutions -- have an obligation
and a duty to protect inmates."

In his statement of claim, Mr. Deguire alleged that even the Crown
prosecutor in the case, Claudette Breault, told him he never
should have been placed in the same cell as the three men who
attacked him.

Mr. Deguire alleges he now suffers head, neck, shoulder and back
pain on a daily basis and is seen by specialists for his vision,
hearing and brain injuries.  He struggles to get enough sleep to
work even a half day, and feels dizzy when climbing on
scaffolding.  According to his statement of claim, Mr. Deguire can
no longer work full-time and has had his hours cut in half, now
earning a lower hourly wage.

Mr. Deguire alleged the province was negligent and owed him a duty
of care while he was incarcerated at the jail.  He's seeking
$500,000 in damages in a lawsuit filed by lawyer Paul Champ, who
is representing hundreds of current and former inmates of the
Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre in a proposed class action
lawsuit over jail conditions there.

"The defendant has undertaken by legislation to provide for the
custody, care and supervision of individuals incarcerated at the
Brockville jail," said his statement of claim.

None of the allegations have been proven, and the ministry has yet
to file a statement of defense.  The ministry has declined to
comment on the case while it's before the courts.


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Tax on Foreign Home Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rankin, writing for CBC News, reports that it's taken just
over six weeks, but B.C.'s controversial tax on foreign home
buyers is now facing a major legal challenge.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed in B.C. Supreme Court on
behalf of virtually all non-Canadians who have been forced to pay
an extra 15 per cent under amendments to the Property Transfer tax
act.

If the lawsuit is certified by the courts and succeeds, the
province could be forced to repay hundreds of millions of dollars
-- much of the expected revenue now earmarked to pay for
affordable housing for British Columbians.

The additional charge went into effect August 2, brought in by the
B.C. government in an attempt to cool down Metro Vancouver's
overheated real estate market.

Foreign investors, especially from mainland China, have been
blamed by some for fuelling high home prices.

Lead plaintiff a university student

The lead plaintiff in the case is Jing Li, 29, a university
student from the People's Republic of China, now living in
Burnaby.

In August, Jing told CBC News she was caught in a financial crunch
by the imposition of the additional tax.

In mid-July, she cobbled together a 10 per cent deposit on a
$560,000 townhouse in Langley by borrowing from her parents and
friends in China.

Twelve days later, the new levy was imposed.

The tax added $84,000 to the price of the property.  If she backs
out of the deal, she will lose her non-refundable deposit of
$56,000.

"I can't go forward and also can't go back," she told the CBC at
the time.

Now, in the notice of civil claim filed on Sept. 19, Jing
represents nearly all foreign buyers in the province who have been
forced to pay the additional 15 per cent.

Lawsuit alleges discrimination

The suit argues the provincial government has acted outside its
jurisdiction, and that only the federal government has the
exclusive power over "the conduct and regulation of foreign trade,
aliens and the regulation of trade and commerce."

The lawsuit also claims the additional tax has the "sole effect of
discriminating against [foreign buyers] because of their status as
foreign nationals."

And that, her lawyer argues, violates more than two dozen
international treaties that Canada has signed with nations ranging
from Argentina and China, to Russia and the United States -- the
latter covered by NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"The problem here is that the province has intruded into an area
of federal jurisdiction" says Luciana Brasil, a partner with
Branch MacMaster Barristers and Solicitors, the law firm that has
filed the class-action suit on behalf of Jing.

"Because the province chose to use nationality as the basis for
the tax, they're intruding into an area of federal jurisdiction. .
. . They're violating over 30 international treaties that
guarantee equal treatment to these citizens and residents of other
countries."

'We say they used the wrong tool'

Ms. Brasil says there's no denying there's a real estate problem
in Metro Vancouver -- it's just that the province made a mistake
when it imposed the additional 15 per cent tax on foreign buyers.

"The case is not really about whether there's a housing crisis or
whether or not there is a vacancy issue . . .  what we take issue
with here is the tool that the province chose to use," says
Ms. Brasil.

"We say they used the wrong tool for the job.  It's like trying to
use a screwdriver to put a nail on the wall.  It just doesn't
work."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.  The B.C.
government has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.

In order to proceed, the claim will have to be certified as a
class action by the B.C. Supreme Court, a process that could take
months if not years.

In the meantime, it's expected the province will continue to
collect the extra 15 per cent tax.


CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Deere Seeks Certification of Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DEERE CONSTRUCTION, LLC v.
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FLORIDA, LLC and CEMEX INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-24375-CMA (S.D. Fla.), moves for certification of two
classes: a class of individuals and entities who were harmed by
Cemex's violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and a class of individuals and entities, who were
harmed by Cemex's alleged breach of the uniform contracts.  The
Plaintiff proposes these definitions for the Classes:

   (1) FDUTPA Class:

       All individuals and entities residing in Florida that paid
       an added on or separately listed "fuel surcharge" or
       "environmental charge" (or other similarly named fee) that
       was received by Defendant or its related entities at any
       time from November 25, 2011 through the date of class
       notice; and

   (2) Contract Class:

       All individuals and entities residing in Florida that
       entered into a written contract with Defendant or its
       related entities, and that paid an added on or separately
       listed "fuel surcharge" or "environmental charge" (or
       other similarly named fee) that was received by Defendant
       or its related entities at any time from November 25, 2011
       through the date of class notice.

       Excluded from each proposed class are any individual or
       entity currently in bankruptcy, and any individual or
       entity whose obligations have been discharged through
       bankruptcy.

Deere Construction also asks the Court to appoint its counsel as
class counsel, and allow the Plaintiff 60 days following
certification to present the Court with a proposal for class
notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KCDn3rvf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Javier Lopez, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
                  jal@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN, L.L.P.
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Archie Lamb, Esq.
          ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          Post Office Box 2088
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Telephone: (205) 324-4644
          Facsimile: (205) 324-4649
          E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Landowners Sue Over Gas Drilling Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubinkam, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Jan Brown pores over his royalty statement and wonders where all
the money went.

A few months ago, the nation's second-largest natural gas producer
siphoned $2,201 worth of gas from his 240-acre property, but paid
him only $359 after taking deductions for transportation and
processing.

Mr. Brown, 59, who relies on the royalties as his sole source of
income, says the deductions are outrageous and claims his lease
forbids them.  He feels cheated and duped.

In Pennsylvania and other leading gas-producing states, a battle
royal has developed over royalties, with landowners bitterly
disputing the sums that some drillers have been taking from
royalty checks already severely diminished by a collapse in
prices.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. is facing royalty lawsuits in Texas, Ohio,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania -- including one
filed by the Pennsylvania attorney general -- and says it has
received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S.
Postal Service, and states over its royalty practices.

The deductions' impact is especially acute in Pennsylvania, where
gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale, the nation's largest
natural gas field, has been selling at a steeper discount than
anywhere else in the country.  Some landowners have seen their
royalty checks dwindle to nothing at all, despite a 1979 state law
that mandates a landowner royalty of at least 12.5 percent of the
value of the gas.  In rare cases, landowners have even gotten
statements with negative balances.  "This is robbery," declared
Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko, an ardent supporter of
gas drilling who has nevertheless found himself at war with the
industry.  "People up here are fighting mad."

Energy companies have sunk more than 1,000 wells in Mr. McLinko's
rural county since 2009. In the early years of the fracking boom,
royalties could amount to tens of thousands of dollars per month.
The money helped save many family farms.

Then prices tumbled, the wells began producing less gas as they
aged, and residents began taking a closer look at their
drastically shrunken checks.  Many of them didn't like what they
saw: huge deductions for the cost of getting the gas from well to
market.

Charlene and John Tewksbury, who own a dairy farm, said that for
every $1.20 their gas fetched this year, Chesapeake has been
taking about $1.15 in deductions.  They figure the deductions have
totaled $277,000 since their wells began producing gas in 2011 --
cash they want back.  "It's a lot of money.  It could have done
something in this state, but, instead, Chesapeake kept it,"
Charlene Tewksbury said.

Chesapeake did not answer questions from the Associated Press
about its practice of taking deductions, but said in a statement
that it had been working with the Pennsylvania attorney general's
office and class-action plaintiffs on a "global resolution" of the
royalty dispute.  A mediation session is scheduled for
Oct. 25.

The disagreement centers on how the gas should be valued for
royalty purposes.

Landowners contend they are entitled to 12.5 percent of whatever
the gas sells for, citing the state's minimum royalty law and the
gas companies' own sales pitches that induced landowners to sign
drilling leases.  Drillers say the royalty is properly calculated
based on the market price, less post-production deductions for
transportation and processing, a method permitted in most states.


CITY OF EAST CHICAGO: "Mabry" Suit Alleges Housing Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA MABRY, individually and as mother and next friend of K.W.,
M.C. 1, M.C. 2, J.W. 1, and J.W. 2, who are minors, ANGELA
ESPINOZA, individually and as mother and next friend of A. E., R.
E., N. C., A. C., and K. C., who are minors, and ROBERTO CABELLO,
JR., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF EAST CHICAGO,
ANTHONY COPELAND, individually and in his capacity as mayor of the
City of East Chicago, BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., E I DUPONT
de NEMOURS AND COMPANY, ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, EAST CHICAGO
HOUSING AUTHORITY, and TIA CAULEY, individually and in her
capacity as the director of the East Chicago Public Housing
Authority, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00402-JVB-JEM (N.D. Ind.,
September 15, 2016), alleges that the City and ECHA maintained
affordable housing for the Tenants including families with
children, people with disabilities, and others on land that the
City and ECHA knew or reasonably should have known was
contaminated with lead, arsenic and/or other toxic substances.

The City is an Indiana municipal corporation located in Lake
County, Indiana.  The City employed Anthony Copeland, who is
currently the mayor of East Chicago. ECHA maintained, and
maintains, the housing in which the Tenants lived.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Alejandro Mendoza, Esq.
     ALEX MENDOZA LAW, LLC
     6950 S. Indianapolis Blvd.
     Hammond, IN 46324
     Phone: (219) 200-2000


COLORADO: ACLU Files Class Action Over Hepatitis C Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Allen, writing for The DenverChannel.com, reports that the
ACLU of Colorado is filing a federal class action lawsuit against
Colorado's Medicaid program in an effort to increase access to a
live-saving drug to treat hepatitis C.

The American Civil Liberties Union suit filed on Sept. 19 states
that thousands of low-income Coloradans suffering from hepatitis C
are being denied treatments that have more than a 90 percent cure
rate, but cost about $40,000 per person.

"We're sitting on it because of money," said David Higginbothum, a
Canon City plumber who believes he contracted hepatitis C while
working in a hospital in college.  "My doctor just flat out told
me they're not going to treat me."

Hepatitis C is a life-threatening, infectious disease that attacks
the liver, but Medicare will only cover patients in more advanced
stages of the disease.

The ACLU says the treatments are available without restrictions
for patients covered by Medicare, the Veterans Administration, and
the overwhelming majority of private insurers in Colorado.

"Not only is covering early treatment the right thing to do, it's
the legal thing to do" said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado
Legal Director.  "We are challenging a policy that forces
Coloradans who cannot afford private insurance to live with the
serious negative health effects of hepatitis C and to wait for a
cure, possibly for years, until they have suffered measurable and
potentially irreversible liver damage."

There are approximately 14,450 low-income Coloradans infected with
hepatitis C who rely on Medicaid for healthcare, according to the
Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.

Federal law requires state Medicaid agencies to provide "medically
necessary" services and treatments, said Silverstein.

"Providing early treatment is the fiscally sound decision long-
term and it prevents other infections," said Mr. Silverstein.

Mark Williamson, a spokesman with the Colorado Department Health
Care Policy and Financing, said the agency will not comment on
pending litigation, but pointed to the relaxation on the
restrictions in early October.

The state Medicaid program changed its policy on Sept. 1 to
include patients with a fibrosis score of F2, an intermediate
level of liver scarring, and added a new exception for women of
childbearing age who inform Medicaid that they plan to get
pregnant in the following year.

But the ACLU said that policy does not go far enough, which is why
the class action lawsuit is seeking an injunction.

"The latest policy change is a half-step that falls short of what
the law requires, which is full access to medically necessary
treatment for all patients with Hepatitis C," said ACLU of
Colorado Staff Attorney Sara Neel in a statement.

Robert Cunningham, a Denver resident, is the named plaintiff and
class representative in the suit.  He was diagnosed with Hepatitis
C in 2004 and has been denied access to treatment by Colorado
Medicaid because his fibrosis score is F1.

"Everyone should have the right to treatment that can cure them.
It should not be just reserved for some segments of the country,
with the poorest being forced to wait and suffer," said Cunningham
in a statement.  "I want to get healthy, and I want to give people
like me a voice and help the system to change."


CONOPCO INC: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in "Paulino" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled LUCIANNE PAULINO and LATU
FANAIKA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
CONOPCO, INC., doing business as Unilever, Case No. 1:14-cv-05145-
ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y.), move for certification of these classes:

     All persons in the United States and its territories who
     purchased Defendant's Suave Naturals Products during the
     applicable limitations period (the "Class Period").
     Excluded from the Nationwide Class are Defendant's officers
     and directors; members of the immediate families of
     Defendant's officers and directors; Defendant's legal
     representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any
     entity in which they have or have had a controlling
     interest.

     All persons who purchased Defendant's Suave Naturals
     Products in the State of New York during the Class Period.
     Excluded from the New York sub-class are Defendant's
     officers and directors; members of the immediate families of
     Defendant's officers and directors; Defendant's legal
     representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any
     entity in which they have or have had a controlling
     interest.

     All persons who purchased Defendant's Suave Naturals
     Products in the State of California during the Class Period.
     Excluded from the California Sub-Class are Defendant's
     officers and directors; members of the immediate families of
     Defendant's officers and directors; Defendant's legal
     representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any
     entity in which they have or have had a controlling
     interest.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


CORT BUSINESS: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO C. RAMIREZ an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. CORT BUSINESS SERVICES
CORPORATION; and DOES I-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC634871 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages/overtime, penalties pursuant to Labor Code, penalties for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, other
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant has allegedly failed to pay wages and/or overtime to
all Proposed Class Members when they work more than eight hours in
a day or forty hours in a week. The Plaintiff and other Proposed
Class Members were not properly compensated for overtime at the
appropriate rate of pay, because Defendant failed to include Cort
Points in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime in the pay periods where Plaintiff and the
Proposed Class earned Cort Points and worked overtime.

CORT Business provides furniture rental and relocating services in
the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Arl J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com


DALAMA PROTECTION: Faces "Haughton" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMOND HAUGHTON, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DALAMA PROTECTION LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; OSVALDO DALAMA, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-62203-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DALAMA PROTECTION LLC -- http://www.dalamaprotection.org/--
provides protection and investigative services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angel Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 318-0268
     Fax: (954) 327-3016
     E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


DALLAS/FORTH WORTH INTERNATIONAL: "Frazier" Suit to Recover OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rondellte Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport Board, the Joint Venture Manhattan/Byrne/JRT/3i, Wells
Global, LLC, EAS Contracting, LP, Haydon Building Corp.,
Phillips/May Corporation and Balfour Beatty Construction
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02657, (N.D. Tex.,
September 16, 2016), seeks overtime compensation for all unpaid
hours, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and expenses of this action, as well as
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked as a security guard at the Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport through various contractors, namely, Joint
Venture Manhattan/Byrne/JRT/3i, Wells Global, LLC, EAS
Contracting, LP, Haydon Building Corp., Phillips/May Corporation
and Balfour Beatty Construction Corporation, all contractors
operating in the airport.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


DIM SUM: Faces "Lin" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NJ Wage and Hour Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN CHANG LIN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Dim Sum Villa LLC, d/b/a/ Dim Sum Villa, Emily Kei
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05626-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., September 15,
2016), was filed for alleged violations of the Federal Labor
Standards Act, and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and/or practices.

Dim Sum Villa LLC -- http://www.dimsumvilla.com/-- is a Chinese
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keli Liu, Esq.
     HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 353-8588
     Fax: (718) 353-6288


DOOR AND WINDOW: Faces "Briseno" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Briseno, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Door and
Window Guard Systems, Inc., and James Heagney, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08963 (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2016), alleges willful
violations by the Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' alleged failure to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants installing steel and window panels
used to cover doors and windows on vacant buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: (312) 800-1017
     E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


DUPONT: Australia Fails to Acknowledge US Toxic Foam Studies
------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Roe, writing for ABC, reports that the Australian
Government is wasting time and money by failing to acknowledge US
studies into a toxic foam chemical, a US lawyer who led a class
action against the makers of the toxin has said.

The chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was in a firefighting
foam that has leeched into groundwater beneath at least 30
Australian Defence bases including the Oakey Aviation Base on the
Darling Downs.

It has rendered some farm land unusable, property values have
plummeted, and residents have been unable to drink their bore
water.

The same chemical was contained in Teflon and found in a West
Virginian town water supply the late 1990s, sparking legal action
against Teflon manufacturer DuPont, and eventually won a $US70
million settlement for almost 70,000 people who might have been
exposed to the contaminated water.

Kentucky-based lawyer Robert Bilott brought the class action on
behalf of the residents and said he had been watching Australia's
response to the growing contamination issue with interest.

"A lot of time and a lot of resources can be saved by the fact
that a lot of this very complicated and expensive research has
already been done," Mr. Bilott said.

"I think it would be important to take advantage of the data that
already exists so it's not a delayed response to folks who are
drinking this."

Six diseases linked to PFOA: US study finds

The Australian Defence Department maintains there is no strong
links between PFOA and serious human health effects.

Queensland Health advice said adverse health effects had been
found in animals but not in humans.

But as part of the US class action, an independent scientific
panel spent more than $US30 million studying the chemical and its
human health effects.

"One of the things that was remarkable about it was they ended up
getting blood data from 69,000 people in that community,"
Mr. Bilott said.

"They ended up concluding that there was six disease linked to
drinking this chemical in your water for over a year and that was
kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid
disease, preeclampsia and high cholesterol.

"And that data is out there."

Mr. Bilott also raised concerns about Australia's drinking
guidelines for the chemical.

An independent review by a toxicologist found Australia should
maintain its standards for the chemical, despite a decision by the
United States Environment Protection Agency to dramatically lower
what it considered safe.

"It's the same chemical, it's the same science and it's the same
knowledge, so I'm not quite sure why there would be any
distinction," Mr. Bilott said.

A frequently asked questions document on the Defence Department
website said the United States health study could not be used in
Australia.

"The findings of this health study could have been impacted by
many location- and population-specific factors [for example,
routes of exposure, background conditions and lifestyle factors],
which cannot necessarily be translated to the Oakey community,"
the document read.

"In addition, many factors can influence a person's health and
therefore it is challenging to link a person's health issue
unequivocally to PFOS [perfluorooctane sulfonate] and PFOA
exposure."

The Federal Government is undertaking its own epidemiological
study of the human health effects of the PFOA chemical.


EAST LA DIALYSIS: Caballero Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LILIANA T. CABALLERO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. EAST L.A. DIALYSIS CENTER, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC634086
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 16, 2016), accuses
the Defendants of having a consistent policy of failing to pay
wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to the Plaintiff and
other non-exempt employees in the state of California, in
violation of California state wage and hour laws.

East L.A. Dialysis Center is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com


ELBAR INC: "Correa" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Elton Correa, Plaintiff, v. Elbar, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23878 (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Correa allegedly did not receive the required minimum wages and/or
worked overtime hours but did not receive time-and-a-half wages
for such overtime hours.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      Wells Fargo Building
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 780-8228
      Fax: (954) 719-4016
      Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com


ELECTRONIC GAME: January 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 19 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
Southern Division has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
common stock of Electronic Game Card, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF ELECTRONIC
GAME CARD, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 5, 2007 THROUGH MAY
18, 2010, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on January 9, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. before the
Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge of the
Central District of California, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana,
California 92701 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining:  (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of
the sum of $1.755 million should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of $438,750 or 25% and reimbursement of expenses of not more
than $550,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to
each Class Representative, should be approved; and (4) whether the
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as to the settling
defendants.

If you purchased common stock of Electronic Game Card, Inc.,
during the class period from April 5, 2007 through May 18, 2010,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims
Administrator at: Electronic Game Card, Inc. Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063, (Tel:866-274-4004, Fax:610-565-7985, Email:
info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Class, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than
November 28, 2016 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.  If you desire to
be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion postmarked no later than December 20, 2016, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims
Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and postmarked no later than December 20,
2016, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California - Southern Division
411 West Fourth Street
Santa Ana, California 92701

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Class Counsel for Plaintiffs

Jeffrey S. Boxer, Esq.
CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP
2 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

Counsel for Defendant Estate of Lord Steinberg

Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Counsel for Defendants Eugene Christiansen and Kevin Donovan

Alexander H. Cote
Scheper Kim & Harris LLP
601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025

Counsel for Defendant Paul Farrell

John R. Armstrong, Esq.
HORWITZ & ARMSTRONG LLP
26475 Rancho Parkway South
Lake Forest, CA 92630

Counsel for Defendants Bill Torres, Cindy E. Gonzalez, Henry
Mendoza, James Francis Berger, and Timothy Quintanilla

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Class Counsel:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel.: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Sued in Cal. Over Use of Consumer Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEANA FISHER, Individually and on Behalf of A11 Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS
ANGELES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 16CIV01521 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sep. 22, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Defendant from acquiring
and using consumer and/or investigative consumer report to conduct
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and
former employees, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

During the application process, Defendant allegedly procured
consumer reports on Plaintiff and Class Members in accordance with
Defendant's standard practices and procedures. However,
Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or Class Members with a
disclosure that a consumer report may be procured by ERAC-LA for
employment purposes. The Defendant also failed to obtain
authorization for ERAC-LA to procure consumer reports on Plaintiff
and Class members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@glancy1aw.com


EXPRESS ENERGY: "Crain" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
John Crain, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Express Energy Services, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
02806, (S.D, Tex., September 16, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages
due, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Express Energy Services, L.L.C. is a Texas corporation that
operates an oilfield service business throughout the Unites
States. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a field hand and
driller. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834
      Fax: (469) 339-0204

               - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: AP7 Files Class Action Over Share Dilution
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Fixsen, writing for IPE, reports that Sweden's seventh
national pension fund AP7 is suing Facebook over its resolution to
issue a new class of shares as part of the internet giant's plan
to allow chairman and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg to retain control
over the company while selling much of his own company stock.

AP7 said it launched a legal case against Facebook in the Delaware
Court of Chancery in May after the US company announced the plan
to issue a new "C" class of shares, adding to the "A" and "B"
shares already in issue.

Richard Groettheim, chief executive at AP7, told IPE: "The reason
for the case is that we think, by suggesting the reclassification
of shares -- and the board has, indeed, now decided to do this --
and by issuing the free shares, which will be less valuable
because they don't have voting rights, we will be less well off as
a shareholder."

Under the plan, announced in April and voted through in June,
Facebook will issue new C shares and distribute two of the new
shares to shareholders as a dividend for each class A or B share
they own.

AP7 owns A shares, and its holding in Facebook is worth around
SEK2 billion (EUR209m), making it one of the largest shareholders
in the company.

However, according to US law firm Kessler Topaz, Mr. Zuckerberg
controls Facebook through his 76% ownership of Class B shares,
which each hold 10 votes, while A shares carry one.

Mr. Zuckerberg has said the share reclassification was aimed at
allowing him and his wife Priscilla to carry out their plan to
give 99% of their Facebook shares away to "advance human potential
and promote equality" while keeping the company "founder-led".

AP7 is the default pension provider in Sweden's Premium Pension
System (PPM).

Kessler Topaz, representing AP7 in the case, said that, by issuing
stockholders two of the new shares for each share of Class A or
Class B common stock, Mr. Zuckerberg will be able to sell or
dispose of millions of shares of Class C stock while continuing to
maintain control over the company.

"Class A common stockholders further suffer economic harm because
the non-voting Class C shares being foisted upon them will likely
trade at a discount to the Class A voting shares, thus diminishing
the value of their Facebook holdings," the firm said.

The Delaware court appointed AP7 and Kessler Topaz to co-lead the
class action litigation along with Amalgamated Bank and the law
firm of Grant & Eisenhofer on 16 May, the firm said.

The defendants have agreed not to issue the Class C stock until
the court rules on AP7's case, it said, adding that a trial is
likely to be set for January 2017.

Mr. Groettheim said there had been similar cases where companies
had suggested reclassifying shares, involving Google and
sportswear firm Under Armour, but that these had both gone to
settlement.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Pensions Agency (Pensionsmyndigheten) has
announced it is acting to put in place better protection for
consumers in its Premium Pension System.

The government agency said it developed a revised cooperation
agreement for the many pensions investment providers whose funds
are available to Swedes as an alternative to the default provider,
national pension fund AP7.

Mats Oberg, director of the Swedish Pensions Agency's fund unit,
said: "The new agreement means even stronger consumer protection
for the investor and underlines the obvious, in that rogue players
should not have anything to do with premium pension fund
activity."

Even though there was already consumer protection in place in the
current agreement, the agency said there had been far too many
cases where people felt cheated by providers and their
telemarketers.

Consumers had often been told outright lies on the phone, the
agency said, with sales callers claiming to belong to the agency
itself, or telling them the default AP7 fund option was to be
closed.

"Marketing and sales of mutual funds within the premium pension
should be done in a fair and transparent manner," Mr. Oberg said.

The new cooperation agreement should not pose any problems for
serious management companies, he said.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: "Mitchell" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Dwight D. Mitchell, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Federal Express
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03172, (D. Md., September
16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

FedEx is an international organization operating in the air
courier service industry with its principal office located in
Memphis, Tennessee. Plaintiff works as a security specialist in
their Crofton, Gaithersburg and Upper Marlboro, Maryland
locations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis, Esquire (#29774)
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. shareholders that the firm has filed a
shareholder class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of FCA
securities between October 29, 2014 and July 18, 2016, inclusive.

FINAL REMINDER: Shareholders who purchased FCA securities during
the Class Period may, no later than September 27, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information, or to view a copy of the
complaint, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/fiat-
chrysler-automobiles-nv-2016#join.

FCA shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706, or at info@ktmc.com, ahead of
the September 27, 2016 deadline.

FCA is an international automotive group engaged in designing,
engineering, manufacturing, distributing, and selling vehicles,
components, and production systems. The Company's vehicles are
produced for the mass market under the Abarth, Alfa Romeo,
Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Jeep, Lancia, and Ram
brands and the SRT performance vehicle designation. The Company
sells vehicles in the United States through its U.S. subsidiary,
FCA US LLC ("FCA US").

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period the defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business and operations to investors. Specifically, the defendants
misrepresented the Company's growth by purposefully inflating
FCA's vehicle sales numbers and falsely touting the Company's
streak of U.S. monthly vehicle sales growth (on a year-over-year
basis).

As detailed in the complaint, the truth about FCA's business
practices began to surface on January 12, 2016, when an FCA-
affiliated dealer filed a lawsuit accusing FCA US of paying
dealers to improperly inflate vehicle sales numbers by reporting
unsold vehicles as sold and then reversing those fictional sales
during the following month. Following this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined $0.66 per share, or over 8%, between
January 12, 2016 and January 14, 2016.

Subsequently, on July 18, 2016, several news outlets reported, and
FCA confirmed, that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") were investigating the
Company's sales and reporting practices.

Finally, on July 26, 2016, the Company announced that it had
revised the way it reports monthly U.S. vehicle sales -- revealing
that its much publicized 75-month streak of U.S. monthly vehicle
sales growth (on a year-over-year basis) actually ended at 40
months in September 2013.

FCA shareholders may, no later than September 27, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-nv-2016#join.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
please visit www.ktmc.com


FIVE GUYS: Cert. of Assistant GMs Class Sought in "Isaac" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Isaac asks the Court to conditionally certify the proposed
collective action captioned DWAYNE ISAAC v. FIVE GUYS OPERATIONS,
L.L.C., d/b/a FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES, Case No. 2:15-cv-00436
(S.D. Tex.).

Mr. Isaac contends that FGO has a nationwide policy of classifying
its "Assistant General Managers," including him, as non-exempt but
not paying its "Assistant General Managers" for time-and-a-half of
their regular rate if they work more than 40 hours in a week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

He also seeks authority to issue "opt-in" notices to his
similarly-situated "Assistant General Managers" in all FGO
locations, who are or were paid by FGO as "Assistant General
Managers" during the three years preceding the filing of the
action, as they are all owed damages based on FGO's violations of
the FLSA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Covich, Esq.
          COVICH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 2100
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 884-5400
          Facsimile: (361) 884-5401
          E-mail: daniel@covichlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Josh W. Hopkins, Esq.
          Joseph E. Ritch, Esq.
          ELLIOTT & RITCH, LLP
          321 Artesian St.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 883-3000
          Facsimile: (361) 883-3003
          E-mail: jhopkins@elliottritch.com
                  jritch@elliottritch.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Krebsbach" Suit Over Defective Sunroofs
----------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS KREBSBACH, KATHLEEN KREBSBACH, JAMES ALEXANDER, and MARTHA
ALEXANDER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02200-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., September 15, 2016), was filed
over alleged defective automobile sunroofs shattering in Ford Edge
vehicles.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY is in the business of designing, manufacturing,
and distributing motor vehicles. Ford's vehicles include those
sold under the Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury brands.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Crystal Foley, Esq.
     SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
     100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
     Los Angeles, CA 90245
     Phone: (310) 322-3555
     Fax: (310) 322-3655
     E-mail: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com

        - and -

     Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
     Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
     SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
     112 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016-7416
     Phone: (212) 784-6400
     Fax: (212) 213-5949
     E-mail: phanly@simmonsfirm.com
             mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Simmons Hanly Conroy Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the nation's largest law firms
focused on consumer protection and mass tort actions, on Sept. 19
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California against Ford Motor Company alleging
that large glass panoramic sunroofs on some Ford vehicles have
spontaneously shattered. Simmons Hanly Conroy is co-counsel in the
case with Greg Coleman Law PC of Knoxville, Tenn., a prominent
class action firm.

The lawsuit claims that the shattering sunroofs pose a serious
safety issue because many drivers report that the startling effect
of the glass explosion causes accidents or near-miss accidents in
addition to some drivers and passengers being cut by falling
glass.  According to the complaint, "The shattering events are so
powerful that startled drivers compare it to the sound of a
gunshot, after which glass fragments rain down upon the occupants
of the vehicle, sometimes while driving at highway speeds."

The action seeks national and state class certification,
injunctive relief, and damages on behalf of plaintiffs and others
who bought or leased a Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury vehicle with a
sunroof that spontaneously shattered.

"We trust that the vehicles we choose to drive will keep us and
our families safe from accidents, including those caused by
defects that car manufacturers have incorporated into their
automobiles," said Simmons Hanly Conroy Shareholder Paul Hanly --
phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this
case.  "Car manufacturers must be held accountable for defects
that contribute to accidents and injury to drivers of their
vehicles."

At least 70 owners of Ford vehicles have reported to the National
Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) that at least 80
panoramic sunroofs have shattered.  The complaint alleges Ford has
known about this problem since at least 2008 due to complaints to
the NHTSA about defective sunroofs shattering in the Ford Edge.
Ford has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the NHTSA
on this issue since May 2014.

Mr. Hanly added, "While several other automakers, including
Volkswagen and Hyundai, have initiated voluntary recalls on their
vehicles experiencing the same sunroof-shattering defect, Ford
continues to deny owner and lessor warranty claims, much less to
institute a recall of these defective vehicles."

According to the complaint, sunroofs began evolving in the mid-
2000s from what were modestly sized portions of the roof over the
driver and front passenger seats, to those that cover almost the
entire roof.  The expanded sunroofs have posed new and significant
engineering challenges because the required tempered glass plates
take up much of the surface area of the vehicle's roof, requiring
precision in strengthening, attachment and stabilization.  Ford
has sold at least a million vehicles with the panoramic sunroof,
often called the Vista roof, in the United States since 2007.
Marketed as a luxury upgrade, the high-cost, panoramic sunroof
option attracted the plaintiffs in this case, as well as others,
to buy or lease Ford vehicles over less expensive models without
the "glass roof."

The case is Douglas Krebsbach, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Cause
No. 2:16-at-01154; In the District Court for the Eastern District
of California.  The named plaintiffs in the case are Douglas and
Kathleen Krebsbach of Folsom, Calif., and James and Martha
Alexander of Foley, Ala.

Simmons Hanly Conroy also is involved in pending litigation
against Volkswagen on behalf of several thousand plaintiffs who
were affected by the German automaker's recent emissions scandal.
In addition, Simmons Hanly Conroy Shareholder Jayne Conroy served
as a member of the Lead Counsel Committee for Economic Loss Claims
for the MDL involving the Toyota Motor Corp. unintended
acceleration litigation.

                About Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLC

Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC -- http://www.simmonsfirm.com-- is one
of the nation's largest mass tort law firms and has recovered more
than $5 billion in verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs.
Primary areas of litigation include asbestos and mesothelioma,
pharmaceutical, consumer protection, environmental and personal
injury.  The firm's attorneys have been appointed to leadership in
numerous national multidistrict litigations, including Vioxx, Yaz
and Toyota Unintended Acceleration.  The firm also represents
small and mid-size corporations, inventors and entrepreneurs in
matters involving business litigation.  Offices are located in New
York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and
Alton, Ill.


GARLOCK SEALING: December 9 Deadline Set to Vote on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Worked Around Gaskets, Packing, or Equipment Containing
Asbestos The Garlock and Coltec Bankruptcy Settlement May Affect
Your Rights.

There is a bankruptcy involving claims about exposure to asbestos-
containing gaskets, packing, and equipment.  Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC, The Anchor Packing Company, and Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd., along with representatives of
asbestos claimants, have filed a new plan of reorganization (the
"Plan").  Coltec Industries Inc is also part
of the Plan.  If claimants approve the Plan, Coltec will merge
with a company known as OldCo, LLC, and that company will file a
bankruptcy case.  Together, these companies are referred to as the
"Debtors.

The gaskets and packing were used in places where steam, hot
liquid, or acids moved through pipes, including industrial and
maritime settings.  The equipment included compressors, engines,
pumps, transformers, and other equipment that may have had
asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets or packing.  The
Coltec-related divisions or businesses that may have sold
asbestos-containing products or equipment were Fairbanks Morse,
Quincy Compressor, Central Moloney, Delavan, France
Compressor, and Farnam.

Who Is Affected by the Bankruptcy Case?
Your rights may be affected if you:

   -- Worked with or around Garlock asbestos containing gaskets or
packing, Coltec equipment with asbestos components, or any other
asbestos-containing product for which Debtors are responsible, or

   -- Have a claim now or in the future against the Debtors for
asbestos-related disease caused by any person's exposure to
asbestos containing products.

Even if you have not yet been diagnosed with any disease or
experienced any symptoms, your rights may be affected.
The Court has appointed a Future Claimants' Representative ("FCR")
to represent the rights of these future claimants.

What Does the Plan Provide?
The Plan is the result of a settlement agreement between the
Debtors, the FCR, and committees representing asbestos claimants
against Garlock and Coltec (the "Asbestos Claimants Committee").
The Plan will establish a Trust funded with $480 million
to pay asbestos claims against Garlock and Coltec.  If the Plan is
approved, all claims must be filed against the Trust.  You will
not be able to file claims against the Debtor or protected
parties.  If you have claims only against Anchor, you are not
expected to recover anything, as that company has no assets and
will be dissolved.

The Plan replaces a different plan that was supported by the
Debtors and FCR.  The Plan provides more guaranteed funding for
paying asbestos claims, and also pays claims against Coltec.  The
Asbestos Claimants Committee opposed the previous plan, but
supports the Plan.

Who Can Vote on or Object to the Plan?
All identifiable asbestos claimants or their attorneys will
receive the "Solicitation Package."  This includes the Plan,
Voting Ballot, and other information.  You can vote on the Plan by
providing certified information about your claim, or making a
motion to vote as described in the Solicitation Package
available online or by calling the toll-free number.

You will need to vote on the Plan by December 9, 2016.  You may
also object to the Plan and the adequacy of the FCR's
representation of future claimants, but must do so by December 9,
2016.

Do I Have to File a Claim?
Certain deadlines for filing asbestos claims against Garlock have
already passed.  If you have an asbestos claim against Coltec
based on a disease diagnosed on or before August 1, 2014, you must
cast a ballot before December 9, 2016, or else file a
claim by March 24, 2017.  If you do not file a claim, you may lose
your right to bring your Coltec claim against the Trust in the
future.  Individuals diagnosed with disease after August 1, 2014
do not have to file a claim at this time, but may be able to vote
or object to the Plan.  In addition, if you have already filed an
asbestos claim against Garlock, you do not have to file a separate
Coltec asbestos claim.

When Will the Court Decide on the Plan?

A hearing to consider confirmation of the Plan will begin at 10:00
a.m. ET on May 15, 2017, at the US Bankruptcy Court, Western
District of North Carolina, 401 West Trade
Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.

For Information: www.GarlockNotice.com 1-844-Garlock


GOOGLE INC: High Court Set to Address Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tonda Maccharles, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the high
court is set to take on big cases, including a B.C. woman's class-
action lawsuit against Facebook.

Can a Canadian court curb Google search results worldwide if they
advertise a Canadian company's counterfeiting competitor? Does
Facebook violate your privacy rights when it uses your name and
photo in ads to endorse products after you "liked" a website?
What's the proper test to release a convicted murderer on bail
while he appeals a conviction?

They're just some of the big questions among 29 appeals facing a
short-handed Supreme Court of Canada as it starts a busy fall
session next month.

Six months after Thomas Cromwell announced his Aug. 31 retirement,
no replacement has been chosen.  The deadline for a shortlist of
interested candidates to be submitted to the prime minister is the
end of this week.

But the high court's work cannot be put on hold.  So, seven or
eight judges will sit on panels through October and likely into
November while the time-consuming vetting and consultation process
for a new judge is completed.

At the heart of the Google case is how far Canadian courts can go
to uphold the public interest -- in this case the intellectual
property rights of an industrial design company -- as defined and
protected by Canadian statutes.  The small Burnaby technology
business sued a company called Datalink for stealing their company
secrets and manufacturing a competing product.  It also got an
injunction against Google from displaying search results related
to the company, which operates from an undisclosed location.

Google said it has nothing to do with the lawsuit but was dragged
into it, even though the offending website is still operating and
available "using readily available information location tools,
such as other search engines and social networking sites."

"The effect of the Worldwide Order is that only Google's speech is
restricted, as it is now prohibited from truthfully informing the
global public (including users inside and outside Canada) about
the existence of publicly and readily accessible webpages," argues
Google.

In another significant Internet law case, a B.C. woman's class
action lawsuit against Facebook seeks damages for violating
Canadians' privacy in online advertising.

Facebook argues people consent to use of their name and image when
they sign up, and the global giant disputes that Canadian courts
have jurisdiction over these questions.

In the B.C. Supreme Court, Deborah Douez won certification for her
class action that claims Facebook "harvested and sold" the names
and images of about 1.8 million B.C. residents for advertising
purposes "all without proper consent."  She said it violates
B.C.'s Privacy Act.  However, she lost at the Court of Appeal,
which agreed with Facebook's contention that when people sign the
lengthy "terms of use" agreements, they consent to a clause that
establishes where disputes will be adjudicated -- California, not
in a B.C. court.


HAMILTON PAINTING: "Rowe" Seeks Certification of Painters Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GREGORY ROWE and CODY
PILKINTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CRAIG HAMILTON dba HAMILTON PAINTING, Case No. 6:16-
cv-03259-RK (W.D. Mo.), filed with the Court their motion for
conditional certification and court authorized notice pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs defined the Class
as:

     All current and former employees employed by Hamilton
     Painting as painters from three years prior to filing this
     lawsuit through its conclusion who were not paid proper
     overtime wages when they worked more than forty (40) hours a
     week.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order:

   -- compelling the Defendant to produce within 14 days of the
      order granting the Motion, the full name, all known
      addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      potential class members;

   -- permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days
      of receipt of the Class list from the Defendant, the
      Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S.
      Mail and electronic mail to putative Class members;

   -- allowing 60 days for putative Class members to return their
      Consent to Sue form to the Plaintiffs' Counsel for filing
      with the Court;

   -- permitting the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send a second,
      identical copy of the Notice and Consent to Sue form to
      members of the putative Class 30 days into the Notice
      Period, via U.S. Mail and e-mail, reminding them of the
      deadline for the submission of the Consent to Sue form; and

   -- appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel, Johnson Becker P.L.L.C.
      and Bartimus, Frickleton and Robertson, P.C., as counsel
      for members of the putative Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l9GjI0WW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Marvel, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON AND ROBERTSON, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Rd. #200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: MMarvel@bflawfirm.com


HARRIS & HARRIS: Improperly Collected Medical Debt, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman says a Chicago-based debt collection firm improperly
attempted to collect a medical debt she owed, under a payment plan
she maintained she never agreed to, and even though she was never
placed into collections.

And the woman has now filed a potential class action suit,
believing the debt collector has behaved similarly toward others
like her.

On Sept. 16, plaintiff Angelica Griffin, identified in the lawsuit
only as an Illinois resident, filed her complaint in Cook County
Circuit Court against the firm of Harris & Harris Ltd., of
Chicago. The complaint also named as defendants several Harris
affiliated companies, including Arnold Scott Harris P.C., Balta
Strategic Initiatives and Harris & Harris of Illinois Ltd.
Harris & Harris collects debts on behalf of clients throughout
Illinois and across the U.S., as well as for a number of local
governments, including the city of Chicago.

Griffin is represented in her action by attorneys Berton N. Ring
and Stuart M. Clarke, of Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, Griffin has owed a debt for unpaid bills
to health care provider Northwestern Medicine since at least 2015
for medical services rendered to her child. At that time, the
complaint said, Griffin set up a payment plan with Northwestern,
purportedly agreeing to pay $50 per month until the bills were
fully paid.

According the complaint, Griffin alleged she has never missed a
payment under that plan, having made the minimum payment or more
each month since October 2015 using "Northwestern's online portal
and received a confirmation of payment."

Beginning in late August 2016, however, Griffin said she received
three letters from the Harris firm indicating she was delinquent,
and demanding she pay them $681. The letters offered her the
opportunity to pay $50 per month to the Harris firm.

Despite receiving the collection letters, Griffin alleged she had
never been notified by Northwestern of any problems with her
payments, and had never agreed to any payment plan involving the
Harris firm or its affiliated companies.

Griffin alleged she made her September payment to Northwestern
Medicine, under the terms of her payment plan, and the payment was
received and acknowledged by Northwestern without any
communication indicating they had transferred her unpaid debt to
any collection agency.

Griffin's lawsuit asked the court to create three classes of
additional plaintiffs, including anyone in the U.S. and anyone in
Illinois who received similar communications from Harris & Harris
indicating they owed unpaid debts under payment plans they had not
agreed to, and demanding payment in similar fashion.

The lawsuit indicated the number of people who might be included
in the classes could "number in the thousands."

She alleged these activities violated federal debt collecting
laws.

Under these counts, she has asked the court to award her actual
damages, plus an additional $1,000. Should the court approve a
class action, she asked the court to order Harris & Harris to pay
at l east $500,000, plus attorney fees.

Further, the lawsuit alleged Harris' affiliated companies were
attempting to collect debts in Illinois without a license. While
Harris & Harris Ltd. held a license through the Illinois
Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, the complaint
alleged state records so no such license for the Harris & Harris
affiliates. To press this claim, Griffin also asked the court to
allow her to act as a relator, bringing action on behalf of the
Illinois state government.


HEINEN'S INC: Sued Over Illegal Sales Tax on Starbucks Coffee
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN WALTERS, the Plaintiff, v. HEINEN'S, INC., ET AL, the
Defendants, Case No. CV 16 869429 (Cuyahoga Ct. of Common Pleas,
Sep. 22, 2016), seeks redress for breach of contract, fraud,
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) and/or
unjust enrichment.

As a direct and proximate result of Heinen's deceptive pattern and
practices with regard to its sale of various Starbucks brand
coffees and other products which contain milk and/or a milk
substitutes, consumers were systematically charged an illegal non-
existent sales tax on coffee, tea and other beverages which
contain milk or with milk substitutes in direct contravention of
Ohio law.

Heinen's was founded in 1929 and is based in Warrensville Heights,
Ohio. It has stores in Aurora, Avon, Bainbridge, Bay Village, and
Brecksville.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
          Edward A. Proctor, Esq.
          Gary A. Vick, Jr., Esq.
          CONNICK LAW, LLC
          25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
          Cleveland, Ohio 44122
          Telephone: (216) 364 0512
          Facsimile: (216) 609 3446
          E-mail: tconnick@cormicklawllc.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Calif. Consumer Sues Over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal NewsLline, reports that a
California consumer is suing Hewlett Packard, alleging misleading
and false advertising.

Anthony Fehrenbach filed a class action lawsuit, individually and
on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly
situated, Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Hewlett Packard Company, alleging
violation of the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair
Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Fehernbach suffered substantial
financial injury for paying for the HP Smart Install feature that
doesn't work. The plaintiff alleges Hewlett Packard misrepresented
and falsely advertised that the HP Smart Install feature would be
installed automatically via the Internet and profited from both
the sale of the HP Laserjet printer and the HP Smart Install
feature.

Fehernbach seeks trial by jury, an order certifying this case as a
class action and appointing the plaintiff and his counsel as class
representatives, compensation for actual damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and court costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest and all other relief to which he is justly entitled. He
is represented by attorneys Todd. M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon
of the Law Offices of Todd. M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills,
California.


HOTWIRE INC: Armstrong Law's Bid to Certify to Be Heard Nov. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles Norgle entered and continued to November 4, 2016,
at 9:30 a.m., the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit titled ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. HOTWIRE, INC., 1:16-cv-08739 (N.D. Ill.).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Shonkwiler, Esq.
          LELAND GROVE LAW LLC
          150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 248-2200
          E-mail: jshonkwiler@lelandgrovelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq.
          FREEBORN & PETERS LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 360-6000
          E-mail: jrossman@freeborn.com


HOUSTON HOME: "Bass" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Bass, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Houston Home Companions and Tess Enripuez,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02792 (S.D. Tex., September 15,
2016), alleges that Plaintiff was not paid overtime as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Houston Home Companions is a home care agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092-4322
     Phone: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


INDIVIOR: Says Antitrust Suit Over Monosol Rx Drug Has No Merit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that one of the companies alleged to
have conspired to keep generic versions of a popular opioid
treatment off the market said that an antitrust lawsuit filed on
Sept. 22 has no merit.

Attorneys general for 35 states and the District of Columbia filed
a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that British drugmaker Indivior and New
Jersey's MonoSol Rx conspired to corner the market on Suboxone.

The drug is used to treat people hooked on heroin and other
painkillers.

MonoSol Rx chief executive Keith Kendall said in a statement on
Sept. 23 that the company learned of the complaint on Sept. 22.
"We believe that the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and the suit is both factually and legally
deficient," he said.

The complaint alleges the two companies conspired to make an oral
strip form of the drug that they then marketed as safer than
tablets, squashing competition.

The attorneys general say the conduct is illegal "product
hopping," where a company makes small changes to a product to keep
cheaper alternatives off the market, Pennsylvania's Attorney
General Bruce R. Beemer said in a press release on Sept. 22.

Indivior has not responded to requests for comment.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Adversary Class Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Federman, Joanna Castro and Steve Ryan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed an adversary
and class action lawsuit against ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
on September 16, 2016.

The case is captioned as Federman, et al. v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc., Case No. 16-50296, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).

ITT Educational Services, Inc., provides technology-oriented
undergraduate and graduate degree programs through its accredited
postsecondary institutions, ITT Technical Institutes and Daniel
Webster College, to help students develop skills and knowledge
that they can use to pursue career opportunities in a variety of
fields.  The Company owns and operates more than 130 ITT Technical
Institutes and Daniel Webster College.

According to Bloomberg, the Company began liquidation proceedings
in the Bankruptcy Court on September 16 after closing 136
technical schools, leaving over 35,000 students stranded in one of
the largest college shutdowns in U.S. history.  The 50-year-old
for-profit college operator, which had campuses in 38 states, said
it was forced to close its doors after the U.S. Education
Department demanded a steep increase in the security the Company
would have to post to guarantee federal student aid.  More than
8,000 employees were affected by the shutdown, with the majority
losing their jobs, Carmel, Indiana-based ITT said.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony R. Jost, Esq.
          RILEY BENNETT & EGLOFF, LLP
          141 E Washington St Ste 400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (317) 636-8027
          E-mail: tjost@rbelaw.com


J.J. CARPET: Faces "Chiquillo" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ATILIO E CHIQUILLO, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
vs. J.J. CARPET & GENERAL SERVICES, INC., and JOHN JAIRO MARTINEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-62254-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 21,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and/or minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.J. CARPET & GENERAL SERVICES, INC. is a carpet and rug cleaner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAGUAR ENERGY: "Blanton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Blanton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-00336, (W.D. Tex., September 16,
2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jaguar is a Louisiana-based oilfield services company proving
well-related services to oil companies and operators with
operations throughout Texas and the rest of the United States.
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a well tester/flowback hand
in their Texas operations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Status in Talc Cancer Suit Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah May, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that Johnson &
JohnsonOne of the latest in the onslaught of lawsuits filed
against Johnson & Johnson stemming from its talcum powder-based
consumer products contains claims that the size and scope of the
litigation as it now stands requires a grant of class action
status.

The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana earlier this month, states the plaintiff's
desire to pursue the action on behalf of the thousands of women
who have received an ovarian cancer diagnosis after having used
the company's talc products for years.

               Key allegations in talc class action

Plaintiff Shintelle Joseph was born in 1979 and states in her
complaint that her use of talc products for feminine hygiene
applications began at the age of 17. By 2006, Joseph had been
diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It is alleged that at no time
during her use of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products did the
company issue any warnings on packaging or elsewhere suggesting
that her manner of use posed a risk of cancer.

Joseph further argues that the prospective members of the class
action suit, namely women who have suffered injuries or have died
due to their similar use of talc-based powers, are so large in
number and so dispersed in a geographical sense, that joinder of
the claimants individually does not serve the interests of
justice. It is the plaintiff's belief that there may be thousands
of potential claimants who have been negatively impacted by
ovarian cancer resulting from talc products, including the women
themselves, their spouses and other family members.

          Controversial history of talcum powder products

Though utilized for centuries as a means to reduce chafing,
diminish wetness and provide cool comfort to users, talcum powders
have been the subject of increasing debate in recent years.
Multiple research studies have suggested strong linkages between
using such products in the perineal region for feminine hygiene
and the eventual development of ovarian cancer. Despite mounting
evidence of the very real dangers posed by this particular use of
talc products, the manufacturers of talc powders have not made
changes to labeling designed to alert the public to the
possibility of harm, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
declined to require such adjustments.

              Early talc trials yield massive awards

Thus far, two of the earliest talc lawsuits reached the trial
stage in state courts, with multi-million dollar jury awards being
achieved. In these cases, it was determined that Johnson & Johnson
was negligent in its failure to adequately warn consumers about
known dangers of their products. With these verdicts now in the
rear view mirror, it is anticipated that additional legions of
victims will come forward to fight for compensation and
accountability from the manufacturers of these dangerous powders.

            Prospect of multidistrict litigation looms

With the number of lawsuits related to talcum powder and ovarian
cancer showing no signs of slowing, the possibility that
multidistrict litigation will also be established in order to
better manage them grows more likely by the day. On September 29,
the U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is slated to hear
arguments on whether consolidation of talc cases currently pending
in federal courts nationwide is needed in order to streamline
pretrial proceedings, foster judicial economy and achieve
consistency of early evidentiary rulings in cases with similar
facts and theories.


JP MORGAN: Faces "Hall" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of RESPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated individuals, v. JP MORGAN CHASE, NA, Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-02648-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., September 15, 2016), alleges
that Chase had not notified Plaintiff that he was somehow
ineligible for loss mitigations in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States, with
operations worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luciana Ugarte, Esq.
     SHAPIRO, FISHMAN & GACHE, LLP
     2424 North Federal Highway, Ste 360
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 998-6700
     Fax: (561) 998-6700
     E-mail: SFGBocaService@logs.com
             lugarte@logs.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Seeks Dismissal of Mortgage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
RSPA News reports that JPMorgan Chase Bank has asked the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the putative class action against it for its alleged violation of
New York's lien release statutes.  Plaintiff Tina Bellino had
alleged that the bank failed to timely file notices that mortgages
had been satisfied


KAS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Babyganics Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
consumers are suing a baby care products manufacturer, alleging
false and misleading identification of products.

Tanya Mayhew of Dutchess County, New York, and Tanveer Alibhai of
Oakland, California, filed a class action complaint, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Sept. 7 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against KAS
Direct LLC doing business as Babyganics, alleging violation of the
New York General Business Law and the California Organic Products
Act.

According to the complaint, Mayhew and Alibhai suffered financial
injury for paying a premium price for a series of baby care
products that they believed to be organic.  The suit says they
received less than what they bargained and/or paid for.

The plaintiffs allege a Babyganics falsely represented that its
products are organic and deceptively named its "Babyganics," to
convey to consumers that its products are organic, although the
products contain only small quantities of organic ingredients.

Mayhew and Alibhai seek trial by jury, an order certifying this
case as a class action, appointing the plaintiffs and their
counsel to represent the class, all monetary relief, attorney fees
and court costs, punitive damages and all further relief.

They are represented by attorneys Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer
Law Group PC in Poughkeepsie, New York; Charles J. LaDuca and
Katherine Van Dyck of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP in Washington,
D.C.; and by Melissa W. Wolchansky and Amy E. Boyle of Halunen Law
in Minneapolis.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 7:16-cv-06981


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Wins Prelim. OK of "McCarter" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 16, 2016, in the case
entitled Janice McCarter v. Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, P.C., Case No.
1:13-cv-03909 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Michael T. Mason.

The minute entry states that the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted.  As
stated on the record, the parties should re-submit their proposed
order to the Court's proposed order e-mail address.

The Case is one of the three class action lawsuits against KSN
alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.
The parties in the lawsuits jointly filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class settlement.  The parties have stipulated to
certification of this Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only:

     All persons, including Class Plaintiffs and Individual
     Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012 through the Preliminary
     Approval Date, were sent a '30-day Notice and Demand' by KSN
     at an Illinois address (or at multiple addresses, including
     an Illinois address).

KSN represents that there were approximately 26,383 members in the
class between May 27, 2012, and June 29, 2016.  Based on this
representation and the KSN's representation of its net worth, the
parties agreed to settle their lawsuits, KSN agreed to establish a
settlement fund of $290,000, plus $30,000 for the costs of class
notice and administration, for the total of $320,000 (compared to
the total of $220,000 in the original settlement agreement).
Further, KSN agreed to pay any additional costs of class notice
and administration to ensure that the settlement fund will always
be $290,000.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gB6yh1qv

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

Plaintiff Janice McCarter is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997-5959
          Facsimile: (312) 219-8404
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com

               - and -

          Mark Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC LPA
          1100 W. Cermak, Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 508-5480
          E-mail: mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan N. Ledsky, Esq.
          Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Telephone: (312) 655-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 655-1501
          E-mail: jonathan.ledsky@huschblackwell.com
                  scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Wins Prelim. OK of "Scehura" Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 15, 2016, in the case
styled Krystyna Scehura v. Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, P.C., Case No.
1:14-cv-08838 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Michael T. Mason.

The minute entry states that the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted.

The Case is one of the three class action lawsuits against KSN
alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.
The parties in the lawsuits jointly filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class settlement.  The parties have stipulated to
certification of this Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only:

     All persons, including Class Plaintiffs and Individual
     Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012 through the Preliminary
     Approval Date, were sent a '30-day Notice and Demand' by KSN
     at an Illinois address (or at multiple addresses, including
     an Illinois address).

KSN represents that there were approximately 26,383 members in the
class between May 27, 2012, and June 29, 2016.  Based on this
representation and the KSN's representation of its net worth, the
parties agreed to settle their lawsuits, KSN agreed to establish a
settlement fund of $290,000, plus $30,000 for the costs of class
notice and administration, for the total of $320,000 (compared to
the total of $220,000 in the original settlement agreement).
Further, KSN agreed to pay any additional costs of class notice
and administration to ensure that the settlement fund will always
be $290,000.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gB6yh1qv

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aiOLq2rR

Plaintiff Krystyna Scehura is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE
          4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997-5959
          Facsimile: (312) 219-8404
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com

               - and -

          Mark Lavery, Esq.
          HYSLIP & TAYLOR, LLC LPA
          1100 W. Cermak, Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 508-5480
          E-mail: mark@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan N. Ledsky, Esq.
          Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Telephone: (312) 655-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 655-1501
          E-mail: jonathan.ledsky@huschblackwell.com
                  scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com


LAND O'LAKES: Deal Over Dairy Price-Fixing Conspiracy Finalized
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers in 15 states and the District of Columbia who purchased
dairy products are now entitled to a portion of a $52 million
settlement, culminating a massive antitrust lawsuit filed against
the nation's largest dairy producers who allegedly artificially
inflated the price of milk and other dairy products by killing
hundreds of thousands of cows, according to Hagens Berman.

The suit was originally filed in 2011 against big name food
conglomerates, agribusinesses and the nation's largest dairy
producers, including Land O' Lakes, as well as the National Milk
Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together (CWT),
Dairy Farmers of America Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc. and Agri-
Mark Inc.

The class-action suit stated that defendants engaged in a
nationwide conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk by
prematurely slaughtering cows, illegally causing the price of milk
and other fresh milk products to artificially inflate.

"The biggest dairy producers in the country, responsible for
almost 70 percent of the nation's milk, conspired together in a
classic price-fixing scheme, forcing higher prices for a basic
food item onto honest consumers and families," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman. "We're pleased that this
settlement will return some of what consumers lost due to this
massive fraud perpetrated for ill-gotten gains."

"Compassion Over Killing is proud to have spearheaded the research
that led to this class action suit brought by Hagens Berman on
behalf of millions of consumers harmed by the dairy industry,"
says Cheryl Leahy, General Counsel for Compassion Over Killing.
"Not only was the price of milk artificially inflated, but this
scheme ultimately also cost 500,000 young cows their lives."

How to Claim Your Portion of the Settlement

If you purchased milk or other fresh milk products (cream, half
and half, yogurt, cottage cheese, cream cheese, or sour cream)
while a resident of Arizona, California, the District of Columbia,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia
or Wisconsin at any point between 2003 to the present, you may be
eligible for reimbursement.

"With this settlement, we are happy to offer those affected an
incredibly easy reimbursement process, with no proof of purchase
required," Berman added. "After being duped by big dairy
corporations, we wanted consumers to have a convenient method of
payment."

Affected consumers may choose to:

   * Submit a simple online claim form online or by mail by
     Jan. 31, 2017. The simple online claim form usually takes
     only 3-5 minutes. Claims may be submitted online at
     www.boughtmilk.com, or by mail to Fresh Milk Products
     Antitrust Litigation, PO Box 43430, Providence, RI 02940-
     3430,
   * Exclude themselves,

   * File an objection, or

   * Attend the final approval hearing scheduled for Dec. 16,
     2016.

Those who submit a claim may opt for cash, with no proof of
purchase required. If final approval is granted to the settlement,
class members who have filed valid and timely claims will receive
cash payments distributed directly into an online account of their
choosing, e.g., Amazon, PayPal or Google Wallet account.

There will be two different levels of fixed cash payments, based
on class member's purchases and the total number of class members
making claims. Any remaining funds may be distributed in a second
round using grocery loyalty cards to be automatically loaded with
a fixed dollar amount, based on triggering purchases of milk or
fresh milk products in the relevant states, or, depending on the
funds remaining, distributed to the Attorneys General for the
class jurisdictions for use in prosecuting consumer antitrust
claims.

For further details about the settlement, please see the
settlement agreement available at www.boughtmilk.com, or contact
class counsel at Hagens Berman. For questions about the claims
process, contact the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-417-4561,
via email at info@boughtmilk.com or visit www.boughtmilk.com.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a law firm with offices in 10
cities and has been named to the National Law Journal's
Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. More about the law firm and its
successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for
updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah against
LifeVantage Corporation.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is November 4, 2015 through September, 13, 2016.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester,
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma
City, OK 73120, Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com. Or, visit the
firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all LifeVantage
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than Monday, November 14,
2016 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


MECH-TECH INSTITUTE: Four Men Sue Over False Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Russon, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that four
men who accuse their Orlando technical school of deceiving them
with false advertisements and failing to teach them how to work on
diesel engines have filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status.

Mech-Tech Institute, a for-profit private school, promised to give
them a hands-on education, but that never happened, according to
the lawsuit filed in Orange Circuit Court.

Victor Figueroa, a school vice president, denied the allegations,
saying MTI provided students with a solid education. He said he
was unaware a lawsuit had been filed. The school, based in Puerto
Rico, operates an Orlando campus at 8620 S. Orange Blossom Trail.

The four people suing are Orange County residents Juan Castillo
and Michael Torres; Omar Rivera Oramas, of Osceola County; and
Steaphen Asencio, of Marion County.

Rivera and Torres are current MTI students, while Castillo and
Asencio are former students, the lawsuit said.

Their attorney, Herbert Schwartz, said the men's ages range from
early 20s to late 20s.

They worked jobs during the day and took classes at MTI in the
evening, but they realized they weren't getting what was promised
in the courses, Schwartz said.

"The frustration level was very high," he said as they took out
federal loans to pay for the $21,240 tuition for the 15-month
program.

Even though the students enrolled in the diesel mechanics program,
the only engines they learned how to repair were traditional
gasoline engines -- not diesel ones, court documents said.

The school's "website depicts two diesel trucks in a garage, with
several carts of tools surrounding it," the lawsuit said. "...
These trucks either do not exist or are not accessible to diesel
students."

Most of their education came from reading their textbooks and
answering questions in lectures, the lawsuit said.

"The hands-on and working outside the classroom components were
and are virtually non-existent," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleged instructors often quit or were fired, leaving
entire classes on their own for long periods of time. Different
classes merged together. Other times, the instructors canceled
classes more than five times over five months, it said.

The school offers technical programs, such as racing mechanics,
diesel mechanics and industrial welding.

The diesel mechanics program took 15 months to get a graduate
certificate and was advertised as having a 100 percent job
placement rate, the lawsuit said.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Hernandez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hernandez asks that the Court certify that the claims set
forth in his lawsuit styled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11179 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of
a class defined as:

     All persons in the State of Illinois to whom, during the one
     year prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and
     continuing through the resolution of this matter, Defendant
     sent one or more letters or other communications similarly
     in the form of the October 5th Letter in an attempt to
     collect a non-business debt, which letter was not returned
     as undeliverable by the Postal Service.

Mr. Hernandez brings the class action against Midland Credit for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  He
also asks the Court to name him as Class representative, and
appoint his lawyers as counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9MZFsFsI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.,
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roger Zamparo, Jr., Esq.
          ZAMPARO LAWGROUP, P.C.
          2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140
          Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
          Telephone: (224) 875-3202
          Facsimile: (312) 276-4950
          E-mail: roger@zamparo.com


MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Politicians to Probe Sinking Tower
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Lipton, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the Millennium
Tower, a residential condominium in San Francisco, is sinking, and
politicians want to understand why.

The Millennium Tower markets itself as rare and precious. Now two
other adjectives also define this luxury high-rise: sinking and
tilting.

Residents paid millions of dollars to live in the roughly 400-unit
skyscraper. The building boasts an indoor pool, fitness center,
wine cellar and private dining room. The tower has attracted Bay
Area elites like NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana; San
Francisco Giants outfielder Hunter Pence; Tibco founder and
Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Ranadive; and the late legendary
venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who paid more than $9 million for
the penthouse.

The tony tower is now attracting attention from a different group
of powerful San Franciscans, however: the city's politicians, who
want to understand why this 58-story building has sunk 16 inches,
and is tilting at least 2 inches to the northwest since it was
completed eight years ago.

San Francisco city Supervisor Aaron Peskin held a hearing on the
tower on September 22.

"We are in the midst of a huge building boom," Peskin tells CNBC.
"We should make sure that we are building to the highest
standards, and that we are building the safest buildings that we
can in San Francisco, which is a seismically challenged part of
the world."

There is disagreement about why the tower is sinking and tilting.
The building's developer, Millennium Partners, blames the Transbay
Joint Powers Authority, a public agency overseeing the
construction of a new transit center for the city. The agency dug
a 60-foot hole next to the tower, which the developer asserts
caused the excessive sinking and tilting.

The TJPA contends that these claims are misplaced. Instead, it
counters that the developer's poor structural design directly led
to the tower's excessive settlement.

Specifically, the agency maintains that the foundation of the
tower consists only of concrete slab supported by short piles that
fail to reach the bedrock below, which it says cannot prevent
settlement of a structure of this weight.

Rectifying the tower's problems remains difficult until the cause
of the settlement is determined and agreed upon. Michael Lepech,
an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at
Stanford University, offers two potential methods in which the
current settlement could be theoretically remediated, or at least
abated.

Lepech says that deep piles could be sunk or drilled under the
tower, and the building shored by hydraulic jacking.
Alternatively, stabilization chemicals or cement-based grout could
be injected to bind the soil under the building. However, Lepech
notes that both solutions are costly and unpredictable.

"These solutions will work, but it is not clear how challenging it
would be," says Lepech. "Traditionally, these solutions are not
designed for a building this size."

The building's developer says that the tower remains safe for
residents as well as surrounding neighbors. Some real estate
agents believe that the skyscraper could represent a compelling
investment. They think the building's problems will be fixed
eventually, and there is money to be made now for opportunistic
buyers.

"A buyer can come in and offer under what sellers are asking,"
says Roh Habibi, principal at The Habibi Group, a broker in the
San Francisco Bay Area. "If you're looking for a top building in a
world-class city then the Millennium Tower is a great buy."

Still, the tower's troubles might soon extend beyond the hearing
at City Hall, and into a courtroom. Four law firms recently filed
a class-action suit representing the residents, seeking $500
million in damages from the developer, transit authority and other
parties.


MISONIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Misonix, Inc. securities from November 5, 2015
through September 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

To join the Misonix class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-953.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Misonix made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) deficiencies existed in Misonix's internal controls over
financial reporting; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Misonix's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 18, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-953.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


MGT CAPITAL: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Merger with DVasive, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------
KURT KARNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MGT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., and
ROBERT B. LADD, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07423 (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
22, 2016), seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act).

On May 9, 2016, the Company announced plans to merge with DVasive,
Inc. a company purportedly offering cybersecurity solutions for
cellphones and personal electronic devices. The closing of the
merger was contingent on approval by MGT's stockholders. The major
terms of the deal included the payment to D-Vasive Inc.
stockholders of 23.8 million restricted shares (which was later
increased to 43.8 million) of MGT stock and $300,000 in cash. The
original proposed share issuance was expected to amount to roughly
47% of the Company on a pro-forma fully diluted basis at closing.
The merged company was to be
led by John McAfee and was to be renamed John McAfee Global
Technologies.

The Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was engaging
and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an SEC
investigation; (2) that the SEC investigation and the underlying
conduct would cause the NYSE to refuse to list the Company's 43.8
million shares required for the DVasive merger; (3) that, as such,
the D-Vasive merger would likely not be completed; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
MGT's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 19 issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of MoneyGram International Inc. ("MoneyGram")
(NASDAQ:MGI) pursuant to the Company's secondary offering
completed on or around April 2, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the District of Delaware.  If you
purchased or otherwise acquired MoneyGram securities pursuant to
the secondary offering your rights may be affected by this action.
To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/moneygram-international-inc

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse information in the Company's offering documents
regarding Walmart's possible entry into the money transfer
business and the potential effect it would have on MoneyGram.

The true state of Walmart's entry into the money transfer business
was revealed on April 17, 2014, just over two weeks after the
Offering closed, when Walmart announced that it would launch its
own money transfer product beginning on April 24, 2014.  In
response to this news, MoneyGram's stock price fell by nearly 30
percent.

If you suffered a loss in MoneyGram you have until November 14,
2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation
involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the
nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits.


MOSAIC: Faces Class Actions in Florida Over Gypstacks
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara A. Angeluci, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that
the over-building pandemic, phosphate strip mining, agriculture,
etc. are all competing with us for water from our aquifer.

Water is a precious commodity yet the massive sinkhole in the New
Wales gypstack added millions of gallons of water containing
cadmium, an extremely toxic metal; radium, nitrogen and
phosphorus, the rubber/plastic liner and toxic fragments from the
stack itself to our aquifer, compliments of FDEP and EPA.

Florida has 24 gypstacks, which will receive 30 million new tons
of toxic waste each year.  When will the next gypstack event be?
The monitoring wells are too shallow to monitor activity at bottom
of stacks.  The state should consider requiring all gypstacks
across Florida be capped and closed to further activity.

Mosaic has agreed to test water of neighboring citizens.  A
gesture of good will or a plan to obfuscate the truth.

The third party tester is ECT, a consultant for Mosaic just as
with the Areawide Environmental Impact Study (AEIS), which was
paid for by Mosaic to achieve the desired outcome.  It was
terribly flawed.

Mosaic apologized for the reporting delay and said postponement of
Wingate East application had nothing to do with the current
events.  Not so.  The Manatee County Planning Commission meets
once a week; the regular meeting was Aug. 11, then a special
planning commission meeting was held the following week on
Aug. 18, just for the Mosaic Wingate East Mine.

Mosaic was certainly on a fast track in August and now the brakes
are on until January 2017.  It appears their TV commercials have
waned just as their environmental company mantra.

Class action suits against Mosaic have been filed and rightly so
for this criminal act.


MOSAIC CO: Class Action Suit Filed Over Contaminated Water
----------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Meyer, writing for The Ledger, reports that Morgan &
Morgan's ClassAction.com lawyers announced on September 22 that
they have filed a class-action lawsuit against Mosaic Co. on
behalf of residents who rely on drinking water from wells near the
company's New Wales plant, where a sinkhole opened in late August.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa was on behalf of
three Lithia residents, Nicholas Bohn, Natasha McCormick and Eric
Weckman. The lawyers are looking for more impacted property owners
to join the suit.

The lawsuit says 5,000 people live within a 5-mile radius of the
sinkhole and there are more than 1,500 private wells within the
area. Mosaic has said the nearest private well is 3 miles from the
mine.

The sinkhole opened under a phosphogypsum stack retention pond on
Mosaic's New Wales property, where 4.8 million tons of phosphate
fertilizer and animal feed ingredients are produced annually, the
lawsuit says

According to the lawsuit, when the pond's contents emptied into
the aquifer, it included at least 215 million gallons of
wastewater containing radionuclides, spent sulfuric acid,
wastewater generated from cleaning phosphoric acid from production
pipes and equipment, acidic cooling water with high concentrations
of phosphorous and fluoride and other contaminants.

The lawsuit contends Mosaic knew about the dangers of storing
phosphogypsum but disregarded them

A news release about lawsuit says, "the Floridan Aquifer system
supplies drinking water to millions of residents throughout the
state. It is as yet unclear to what extent these wastes have
travelled through the aquifer, but the wastes contain extremely
toxic and radioactive contaminants such as radium, radon, uranium,
thorium, and lead, as well as other non-radioactive toxins."

The lawsuit says the incident impacts the plaintiffs' property
values and has the potential to impact their health.

ClassAction.com lawyer John Yanchunis said in the news release,
"This lawsuit is about providing peace of mind to families living
nearby the plant. It's about making sure they are confident their
water is safe, and that they don't have to take the word of a
company that repeatedly disregards the public and the environment
in pursuit of profits."

ClassAction.com attorneys can be reached at 888- 987-1307.


MOTION PICTURE: Seeks Dismissal of Rating System Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Stoltz, writing for Electronic Frontier Foundation, reports
that if you have the power to censor other people's speech,
special interests will try to co-opt that power for their own
purposes.  That's a lesson the Motion Picture Association of
America is learning this year.  And it's one that Internet
intermediaries, and the special interests who want to regulate
them, need to keep in mind.

MPAA, which represents six major movie studios, also runs the
private entity that assigns movie ratings in the U.S.  While it's
a voluntary system with no formal connection to government, MPAA's
"Classification and Ratings Administration" wields remarkable
power.  That's because most movie theaters, along with retail
giants like Wal-Mart and Target, won't show or sell feature films
that lack an MPAA rating.  And a rating of "R" or "NC-17" can
drastically limit the audiences who are allowed to view or buy a
movie.

Power creates its own temptation.  MPAA itself has been accused of
rating independent films more harshly than those produced by
MPAA's own member studios.  And this year, a class action lawsuit
seeks to force MPAA to use its ratings system to eliminate tobacco
imagery from children's films.  The lawsuit, Forsyth v. MPAA,
claims that MPAA has a special legal duty to avoid harm to
children, and because of that duty, MPAA should be required to
give an "R" rating to every film that contains smoking or other
tobacco use.

MPAA has responded by moving to dismiss the suit under
California's Anti-SLAPP law.  The group argued that its movie
ratings are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.  It
denied having any legal duty to protect children from images of
smoking. And MPAA argued--sensibly--that Mr. Forsyth's claims are
a slippery slope:

[Plaintiff] is trying to use the tort system to require [MPAA] to
implement his policy goals.  If Plaintiff's claims were permitted
to proceed, there would be no end to claims invoking [MPAA's]
purported duty to disregard its own opinions and instead to
implement a given advocacy group's preferred social policy in
assigning ratings.

Plaintiff's theory . . . has no logical stopping point.  The rule
would require [MPAA] to give an R rating to movies that depict any
conduct that advocacy groups think unhealthy--for example, movies
that depict alcohol use, gambling, contact sports, bullying,
consumption of soda or fatty foods, or high-speed driving.

MPAA is right. The First Amendment generally prohibits using legal
processes to regulate the opinions expressed by others, no matter
how noble the purpose.  In fact, the slippery slope of censorship
is one of the primary reasons why courts and legislatures can
almost never regulate speech based on its content: if one form of
"harmful" speech is banned or limited, it's hard to avoid banning
or limiting speech on every subject that some powerful interest
finds harmful.  We expect that MPAA will prevail in this lawsuit.

But there's an irony to MPAA's position in this lawsuit, because
at the same time it fights to protect the ratings board against
co-opting by special interests, the trade association is also
trying to co-opt other powerful private gatekeepers of speech into
advancing MPAA's own special interest: copyright enforcement.
Internet intermediaries like webhosts, domain name registrars,
search engines, and third-party platforms are, like MPAA's ratings
board, private organizations that stand between speakers and their
audiences. Their roles give them power to suppress speech, by
making it harder for audiences to access, or even making entire
sites disappear from the Internet.

Power, once again, creates temptation.  This year, MPAA made
agreements with two domain name registries, Donuts and Radix,
which control new top-level Internet domains such as .movie,
.online, and .site.  Both registries agreed to receive accusations
from MPAA that particular websites are engaged in copyright
infringement, and to consider taking away those websites' domain
names.  MPAA, along with other representatives of major
entertainment companies, has also been pushing ICANN, the group
that oversees the domain name system, to mandate this new
copyright enforcement regime worldwide.

Shadow RegulationThere are many problems with this initiative,
which we'll be exploring in the coming weeks.  But one lesson that
MPAA should have learned this year is that once one special
interest obtains power to block the channels of communication,
others will come knocking. Many powerful interests want the power
to edit the Internet, from corporations and wealthy individuals
who want to suppress criticism to repressive governments seeking
to quash dissent.  Some may even have widely supported (though
controversial) social goals, like stopping "hate speech,"
blasphemy, or pornography.  Like the plaintiff in the Forsyth
case, all of these folks want these private companies and systems
"to perform a different function . . . one [they] make[] no claim
to serve." Just as MPAA is right to worry that the Forsyth case
could open the door to more control of the ratings board by
various special interests, new copyright enforcement systems will
quickly become enforcement systems for all kinds of speech that a
corporation or government declares to be dangerous.

This has already happened in the copyright realm: Major ISPs in
the United Kingdom are now required to block their customers from
reaching entire websites that are deemed to be copyright
infringers, using a system that was originally set up to block
child pornography.

But, you might say, copyright is a law, while preventing smoking
is simply a policy goal.  But just as MPAA has no legal duty to
promote a zero-tolerance message about smoking, intermediaries
have no legal duty to police the Internet for copyright
infringement, or to prevent their users from infringing.  And just
as laws on "hate speech," blasphemy, and sedition vary widely
between countries, copyright is not the same everywhere.
Depictions of tobacco use are themselves subject to strict "plain
packaging" laws in some countries.  The more Intermediaries on the
global Internet are co-opted into regulating content, the more
pressure they will face to apply the standards of the most
censorious countries and organizations.

In the coming weeks, we'll be exploring how speech on the Internet
is being controlled by private agreements, and how Internet users
can demand accountability and transparency in these Shadow
Regulations.  For now, even if the Forsyth case is quickly thrown
out of court, it should serve as a cautionary tale: build a system
that can regulate the speech of others, and the censors will beat
a path to your door.


MSN MARKETING: "Alan" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MSN Marketing Group d/b/a Mysupernova.com
and Does through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01727
(C.D. Cal., September 16, 2016), seeks treble damages for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in an
effort to sell or solicit its services using an automatic
telephone dialling system where he incurred a charge for incoming
calls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.comb


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Miami Ret. Trust Files Appeal in Del. S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Below, Appellant,
v. JERRY M. COMSTOCK, JR., as Independent Executor of the Estate
of Joshua E. Comstock, RANDALL C. MCMULLEN, DARREN M. FRIEDMAN,
ADRIANNA MA, MICHAEL ROEMER, C. JAMES STEWART, III, H.H. "TRIPP"
WOMMACK, III, THEODORE "TED" MOORE, NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD.,
and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants-Below, Appellees, Case
No. 59599337 (Del. Sup. Ct., Sept. 22, 2016), is an appeal filed
before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware from a lower
court decision in Case No. 9980-CB (Del. Ct. of Chancery., Aug.
24, 2016).

Jerry M. Comstock, Jr., as Independent Executor of the Estate of
Joshua E. Comstock, Randall C. McMullen, Darren M. Friedman,
Adrianna Ma, Michael Roemer, C. James Stewart, III, H.H. "Tripp"
Wommack, III, and Theodore "Ted" Moore are represented by:

          Stephen C. Norman, Esq.
          Michael A. Pittenger, Esq.
          Jaclyn C. Levy, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON &
          CORROON LLP
          1313 N. Market St., 6th Fl.
          Wilmington, DE 19801

               - and -

          Michael C. Holmes, Esq.
          Manuel G. Berrelez, Esq.
          Craig E. Zieminski, Esq.
          Olivia D. Howe, Esq.
          Meriwether T. Evans, Esq.
          Meredith S. Jeanes, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201

Nabors Industries, Ltd. is represeted by:

          William M. Lafferty, Esq.
          Lindsay M. Kwoka, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
          TUNNELL LLP
          1201 N. Market St., Ste. 1800
          Wilmington, DE 19801

               - and -

          Alan J. Stone, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
          MCCLOY, LLP
          28 Liberty St.
          New York, NY 10005-1413

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is represented by:
Ashley R. Altschuler

          John L. Reed, Esq.
          John J. Clarke, Jr.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1201 North Market Street, Ste. 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801


NATIONAL ELECTORAL: Class Action Mulled Over Violent Protests
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZimNews.net reports that Citizens Against Violence and Anarchy
(CAVAA) is inviting all flea markets, corporate, and individuals
whose properties were destroyed during the recent violent
demonstrations in Harare to come forward and register with the
trust, with aim to claim redress.

In a notice the trust, which calls itself as a broad based
organisation representing interest of wide range of stakeholders
who cherish peaceful elections and prosperous Zimbabwe says
everyone who lost goods as a result of the protests should
approach it and register.

"We are going to launch a class action soon against organisations
and individuals who operate under National Electoral Reform Agenda
(NERA) for compensation," read a statement.

According to CAVAA, the registration started on 9 September and is
currently going on.

Meanwhile, though Zim News could not get a comment from NERA
regarding CAVAA's announcement to sue it, NERA is on record of
denying alleged violent behaviour by its members, but, instead
blamed state response to their peaceful demonstrations and has
vowed to stay put until their demands are met.

Zim News once happened to witness one such planned protest where
the unprovoked police ruthlessly attacked the gathering at civic
grounds behind Rainbow Tourism Group hotel in July.

The protesters had been waiting for a court ruling to either grant
permission or deny, but, the police went ahead firing teargas and
unleashing water cannons on the masses causing disorder in the
process.  All hell went loose when the demonstrators resorted to
take their war to the city centre upon realising that they were
being barred from entering the grounds.

This move by CAVAA come amid calls for more protests, basically by
teachers, who are accusing the government of making them second
fiddle to other civil servants.  The Rural Teachers Union of
Zimbabwe (RTUZ) successfully carried out peaceful protests in
Bulawayo and Gokwe over the weekend voicing out their concerns, of
being paid among the last batch of workers.

According to the announced pay days for civil servants the army is
expected to get paid on 20 September, health workers on 23, police
prisons on 27, with teachers on 3 October, this has angered the
teachers.

It is also being alleged that even the weekend's protests went on
peacefully, the police and army was also deployed in the streets
armed to teeth, this resulted in some protesters drawing back.
There were reports saying they (police and soldiers) wielded live
ammunitions, a claim the police have denied.

Commenting on the events MDC-T spokesperson Obert Gutu said the
government has declared war against innocent and unarmed civilians
who are trying to exercise their constitutional right to engage in
peaceful demonstrations.

He claimed that throughout the country, armed police and hundreds
of ZANU PF thugs were deployed even in small towns specifically to
harass, intimidate, and assault people who were peaceful as they
demand reforms.

ZANU PF maintains that it will go on crashing demonstrations
against it, as they it claim the protesters of being rowdy,
violent, and engage into arson, sabotage and looting, even though
NERA attribute the undesirable incidences of looting to
malpractices of infiltrators who are bent on discrediting their
peaceful protests.

Recently, a meeting between NERA and the Zimbabwe Electoral
Commission (ZEC) failed to make any mark after ZEC allegedly roped
in bogus political parties in order to dilute NERA's concerns as
decisions were to be made through voting, to which NERA responded
by walking out of the process.


NOODLES & COMPANY: Class Action Filed Over Credit Card Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garrison, writing for Denver7, reports that several banks
and other financial institutions are alleging the Broomfield-based
Noodles & Company failed to take steps to prevent a massive data
breach earlier this year.

A class-action federal lawsuit was filed Sept. 13 against the
fast-casual chain relating to the breach.

Noodles officials warned customers in May that their credit card
processor reported unusual activity to customers' credit and bank
cards. The breach began around January 2016.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of credit unions, banks, and other
financial institutions that claim they have suffered injury as a
result of the security breach.

The suit alleges that Noodles failed to implement or maintain
adequate data security measures for customer information.

Denver7 reached out to Noodles & Company for comment, but they
have yet to return comment.


OHIO: Disability Wait List for HCBS May Violate ADA, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that the Ohio Department of Developmental
Disabilities (DODD) wait list for home-and community-based
services (HCBS) may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), according to the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) in a
statement of interest related to a class-action lawsuit
challenging the state's wait list.  The DOJ issued its statement
of interest on August 22, 2016.

Approximately 5,800 state residents with intellectual and
developmental disabilities (I/DD) live in intermediate care
facilities (ICFs).


PETSMART INC: Accused by Breingan of Not Giving Proper Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BREINGAN and EARL RAINS, Individually, and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated v. PETSMART, INC., Case No.
16-2686 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., September 16, 2016), is
brought on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers
similarly injured by the alleged unlawful business practices of
PetSmart.

PetSmart is a foreign corporation with a usual place of business
located in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.  PetSmart sells pet products
and services to the general public.  Among other services,
PetSmart offers consumers overnight boarding of pets in either 4x4
kennels or premium, more expensive suites that contain a bed, a
television, and additional space.  For an additional sum, PetSmart
also offers a dog "day camp" in which dogs can spend either a half
day or full day with other dogs in a controlled environment.

The Plaintiffs allege that PetSmart's Chelmsford location
routinely fails to provide its services to the Plaintiffs because
it deliberately overbooks services, lacks sufficient staff, or
simply chooses not to do so.  Instead of providing consumers' pets
with Day Camp Service or Suite Service, PetSmart leaves customers'
pets in small, 4x4 kennels throughout their stay, and PetSmart
hides this fact from customers -- it does not inform consumers of
its failure to provide the premium services purchased, and it does
not offer refunds, the Plaintiffs further allege.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Charlotte Drew, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02 11 0
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

               - and -

          John Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS P.C.
          Park Place South
          350 Park Street, Suite 105
          North Reading, MA 01864
          Telephone: (978) 276-0777
          E-mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Chapstick Natural Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
consumers are suing Pfizer, a personal care product manufacturer,
alleging negligent misrepresentation.

Rachel Tyman of Broward County, Florida, and Johnathan Robinson of
New York filed a class action complaint, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Sept. 2 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer Inc.,
alleging violation of the New York General Business Law and the
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, in 2016, Messrs. Tyman and Robinson
suffered financial damages for paying a premium price for
Chapstick lips products that were misrepresented.  The suit says
the plaintiffs were deprived the benefit of the bargain and also
denied the benefit of knowing what they applied to their lips.

The plaintiffs allege Pfizer falsely misrepresented that its
Chapstick products are 100 percent natural, when they are not, and
mislabeled its product as clinically proven to provide healthier
lips.

"Pfizer provides consumers with truthful information, and the
packaging and advertising for ChapStick(R) Total Hydration 100%
Natural are accurate and scientifically sound.  We deny the
plaintiffs' allegations and believe this lawsuit has no merit,"
the company said in a statement.

Ms. Tyman and Mr. Robinson seek trial by jury, an order certifying
this complaint as a class action, appointing the plaintiffs and
their counsel as class representatives, requiring Pfizer to pay
full restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, actual
damages, attorney fees, court costs and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

They are represented by attorneys Kim E. Richman of The Richman
Law Group in Brooklyn, New York; by Joshua H. Eggnatz and Michael
J. Pascucci -- MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com -- of Eggnatz, Lopatin &
Pascucci LLP in Davie, Florida; by Natalie Finkelman and James C.
Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP in Media,
Pennsylvania; and by Jayne A. Goldstein of Pomerantz LLP in
Weston, Florida.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-06941


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Hodge Seeks Damages Over Vehicular Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA HODGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, 132 Greendale Road, Philadelphia, PA 19154,
the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1515 ArchStreet, 14th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 AND AMERIHEALTH CASUALTY SERVICES
1700 Market Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19103,
v. the Defendant, Case No. 160902552 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 22, 2016),
seeks recovery of damages in connection with serious personal and
bodily injuries sustained in a July 19, 2013 motor vehicle
accident.

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, Patricia Hodge, while operating
an unmarked police vehicle in the course and scope of her
employment with the Defendant, City of Philadelphia, was struck by
a vehicle owned by Western Industries North, LLC and operated by
Jermaine Black. The July 19, 2013 accident was caused by the
negligence and carelessness of Jermaine Black acting on behalf of
Western Industries North, LLC.

The plaintiff sustained serious personal and bodily injury in the
July 19, 2013 motor vehicle accident.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest City, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where
the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and
other American Revolutionary sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
          104 W. High Street
          Milford, PA 18337

               - and -

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER
          & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350 6600
          Facsimile: (215) 665 8197


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules Smoker Failed Citizenship Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlin Crisco, writing for CVN, reports that jurors on September 22
found a smoker failed state citizenship requirements for purposes
of class action membership against the nation's tobacco companies,
clearing Philip Morris of liability for his lung cancer death.
Chacon v. Philip Morris, 08-102-CA-09.

Jurors needed only an hour to conclude Robiel Chacon was not a
Florida citizen and resident either when his lung cancer was
diagnosed on June 3, 1994 or when it manifested, excluding him
from the so-called Engle class action against the country's
tobacco companies.

Chacon, who smoked as many as 4 packs of cigarettes a day for 45
years, died in 1996, two years after being diagnosed with lung
cancer. His widow, Elsa Chacon, claims Philip Morris, makers of
cigarettes her husband smoked, hid the dangers of smoking for
decades, leading to her husband's nicotine addiction and death.

During Thursday's [September 22] closing arguments, Elsa Chacon's
legal team requested up to $19 million in compensatory damages,
plus a finding of punitive liability.

The case is one of thousands of similar lawsuits stemming from the
2006 Florida Supreme Court decision decertifying Engle v. Liggett
Group Inc., a Florida state court class-action lawsuit originally
filed in 1994. Although the state's high court ruled Engle cases
must be tried individually, it found plaintiffs could rely on
certain jury findings in the original verdict, including the
determination that tobacco companies had placed a dangerous,
addictive product on the market and had hidden the dangers of
smoking. To rely on those findings, individual Engle progeny
plaintiffs must establish Florida citizenship, as well as a causal
link between nicotine addiction and smoking-related disease.

The nine-day trial ultimately turned on whether Chacon, who had
immigrated to New York in the 1950s from Cuba, was a Florida
citizen and resident when he developed lung cancer. For purposes
of the case, "citizenship" is considered a person's domicile, or
single, fixed permanent home, while residency was considered a
person's established living location for a period of time.

During Thursday's [September 22] closing arguments The Alvarez Law
Firm's Alex Alvarez pointed to what he considered "overwhelming"
evidence Chacon was a Florida citizen and resident when his cancer
developed, including his purchase of a Miami home in 1986, his
family's move to Miami with all of their personal property in
1988, and the filing of a Florida homestead exemption a year
later.

"They had no personal property, no furniture, no nothing in New
York," Alvarez said. "He would take a duffle bag when he had to go
up to stay at his mother-in-law's house for some business for a
few days."

However, the defense contended Chacon did not do enough to abandon
his New York domicile and establish a Florida domicile that would
render him a citizen of that state before doctors diagnosed him
with cancer. Shook Hardy Bacon's Frank Kelly noted Chacon had
registered to vote in New York as recently as 1992, despite his
family's move to Florida four years earlier, and he retained a New
York driver's license until a month after his 1994 cancer
diagnosis.

Kelly also reminded jurors Elsa Chacon testified her husband, who
maintained a business in New York, would come to Florida to see
his family for a few days every two or three months. "He had not
abandoned New York. His present intention was to be in New York.
His future intention, undoubtedly, was to get to Florida," Kelly
said. But, "the evidence is that had not happened" at the time of
the cancer diagnosis.

Neither the parties' attorneys nor Philip Morris representatives
could immediately be reached for comment.


PLANT ENGINEERING: Certification of Class Sought in "Ortega" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Ortega, on behalf of similarly-situated persons employed by
the Defendant, move the Court to conditionally certify the matter
entitled SAM ORTEGA, Individually and for Others Similarly
Situated v. PLANT ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00106 (S.D. Tex.), as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Ortega also proposes to issue proposed notice to all potential
class members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Sept. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Polaris
Industries, Inc. (PII) ("Polaris" or the "Company") securities
during the period between January 26, 2016 and September 11, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until November 15,
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 Polaris 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
unable to sufficiently validate the initially identified repair
for certain of its recalled RZR vehicles, the Company would
ultimately need to implement a more complex and expensive repair
solution, the financial impact of RZR vehicle recalls was greater
than the Company had disclosed, and the Company had overstated its
full-year 2016 guidance.

According to the complaint, following a September 12, 2016 press
release announcing that the Company was lowering its full-year
2016 earnings guidance due to the impact of RZR thermal-related
problems, including the Company's inability to sufficiently
validate the initially identified RZR Turbo recall repair,
necessitating a more complex and expensive repair solution, the
value of Polaris shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Polaris securities purchased on or after January 26, 2016 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.


POR ENTERPRISES: Faces FLSA Breach Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1-2 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Por Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-01543, (N.D. Ala,, September 16, 2016), seeks damages,
back pay, restitution, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief,
civil penalties, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, and any and all other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Por Enterprises, Inc. operates Jimmy's Lounge, an adult
entertainment bar where Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers. The
latter claim to only derive income from tips from club patrons.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th St.
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 314-0500
      Fax: (205) 254-1500
      Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com


POWER SOLUTIONS: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announces a class action lawsuit was filed against
Power Solutions International, Inc., concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between May 8, 2015 and
August 15, 2016 inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in
advance of the October 21, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that through the Class Period, PSI made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain
transactions; that PSI lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and that as a result, PSI's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On
August 15, 2016, the Company announced that it would delay filing
its Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2016 because its
financial statements were incomplete due to possible problems with
certain transactions involving revenue recognition. When this
information was disclosed to the public, the PSI stock price fell,
causing investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


PREIT ASSOCIATES: "Badger" Sues Over Wheelchair Inaccessibility
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Preit Associates, LP, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01431, (W.D. Penn., September 16, 2016), complains over
wheelchair accessibility.  The suit further seeks payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Josie Badger has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair for
mobility. Plaintiff has visited Defendant's facilities and was
denied full and equal access as a result of Defendant's
inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel. PREIT Associates,
LP is headquartered at The Bellevue, 200 South Broad Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246


PTX INDUSTRIES: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Roofing Products
------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN MUSSER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PTX INDUSTRIES, INC., a dissolved
Delaware corporation and JOHN DOE CORPDRATIONS 1-10, whose true
names are unknown, the Defendant, Case No. BC634883 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Sep. 22, 2016), seeks damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief as a result of
Defendant's willful, wanton, reckless, and/or grossly negligent
conduct in causing consumers' homes to be in a dangerous,
defective, unsafe, and unfit condition for habitation.

The Defendant has knowingly and intentionally concealed, and
failed to disclose that -- notwithstanding statements on its
website, brochures, advertisements and warranties -- its Protex
slate and shake roofing products routinely deteriorate, buckle,
and break far in advance of the expiration of warranty periods.
Indeed, Defendant's shingles have deteriorated and will continue
to deteriorate at a rate which clearly demonstrates their lack of
durability and resiliency. Similarly, Defendant has knowingly and
intentionally concealed, and has failed to disclose, that it
actually had no intention of providing the services set forth in
its purported warranties.

PTX Industries manufactures roofing materials for commercial and
residential replacement markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226 1015
          Facsimile: (202) 789 3960
          E-mail: Mflannery@cuneolaw.com


QUEENSLAND: Indigenous People Suit Sets National Precedent
----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Gregory, writing for ABC News, reports that more than
300 people are suing the Queensland Government in the Federal
Court, which held money in a trust that should have been paid to
them as labourers or domestic workers more than half a century
ago.

Rebecca Jancauskas, from Shine lawyers, said the class actions
first directions hearing had revealed that the litigation
proceedings would be speedy because of the advanced age of the
claimants.

"It was clear that these claims are being taken seriously by
federal court bench," she said.

"And proceedings have set the tone for litigation in other states
where protectionist legislation was in place and wages were
withheld from Indigenous people.

"Dozens of individuals have contacted Shine from across Australia
wanting to register to be a part of action in their state.

"So what we're doing at Shine is investigating bringing
proceedings in other states -- including the Northern Territory,
Western Australia and NSW."

'We were sometimes paid three pounds'

Violet Perry was 15 years old when she and dozens of other girls
were taken from a mission in central New South Wales to become
domestic workers in Sydney.

"The welfare board walked in one day and she said to my mother:
'I've got a job for your daughter'," she said.

"My mother nearly screamed the house down, I was crying and I
didn't know what to say or do."

Ms Perry worked in homes in Sydney's eastern suburbs for years in
the early 1960s.

She said she was "sometimes" paid three pounds a week, but said
there were times where she and the other workers would not get
paid at all.

"Because we had a room down the back we never asked questions,
because they might have done something to us," she said.

Ms Perry, now 71 years old, is one of the dozens of people around
Australia who have come forward wanting to be part of the class
action.

2002 claimants received a 'fraction of what they were owed'

The Queensland Government did set up a reparations scheme in 2002,
but Ms Jancauskas said claimants only received between $2,000 and
$7,000 for decades of work as labourers, stockmen or domestic
servants.

"The amount they received through the reparations scheme was but a
fraction of the money that the Government is holding in trust for
them," Ms Jancauskas said.

"Had people received their entitlements through reparations
schemes, then there would be no need for litigation to be
pursued."

Those who took part in the scheme had to sign a deed of release,
stopping them from taking further action.

But Ms Jancauskas said that would not stop them from participating
in the litigation.


RED GRANITE: Minister Says Husam Musa's Class Action Baseless
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMT reports that lawyer Matthias Chang and former PAS
Vice-President Husam Musa's decision to drop their class action
suit showed their claims were frivolous and baseless, said an Umno
minister.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of law
Azalina Othman Said said furnishing additional facts for a lawsuit
did not require the action to be withdrawn through a supplementary
application.

"Rule 11 of the United States' Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(FRCP) provides that claims brought in the federal courts should
have merit and are not brought for an improper purpose," she said
in a statement on Sept. 26.

"This is also to discourage dilatory or abusive tactics by any
lawyer and to streamline the litigation process by lessening the
amount of frivolous matters brought before the federal courts.
"Therefore, it is observed that the decision of Husam and Chang to
drop their class action against US-based corporations and
individuals linked to alleged embezzlement and money laundering
involving 1MDB demonstrates that their claim is a frivolous claim
or a baseless lawsuit."

She also said that the entire scenario only revealed the
unscrupulous intention of both Husam and Chang, whom she alleged
had filed the suit merely for cheap publicity.

"Husam's justification, saying that the withdrawal is for the
purpose of aligning the claims following new developments in the
case, is unacceptable.

"The duo, not only attempted to embarrass Malaysia, but can also
be seen as being unaware of the court processes and the basic
requirements of filing a class action.

"They are politically motivated and rushed the matter for the
purpose of gaining mere publicity by means of abusing the court."
In August, Chang and Husam filed a suit "on behalf of all
Malaysian citizens" in which they sought damages and the return of
property and other assets which they alleged were purchased using
money stolen from 1MDB.

The suit said the money raised through bond offerings by 1MDB was
used to fund Red Granite, which financed the film "Wolf of Wall
Street".

Red Granite was founded in 2010 by Prime Minister Najib Razak's
stepson, Riza Aziz, and his friend, Joey McFarland.

Riza was among those named in a suit filed by the US Department of
Justice (DoJ), which claimed that more than USD3.5 billion was
diverted from the 1MDB fund that Najib founded in 2009, shortly
after coming to power.


ROCKWELL INT'L: April 28, 2017 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Sept. 19 issued a statement regarding
the Rocky Flats class action settlement.

Did you own property near and downwind from the former Rocky Flats
Nuclear Weapons Plant in Denver, Colorado on June 7, 1989? Are you
an heir of someone who did? Are you the successor of an entity
that did? If so, you could get money from a proposed $375 million
class action settlement.

A $375 million Settlement has been proposed in a lawsuit against
the former operators of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant.
The lawsuit claims that Rockwell International Corp. and The Dow
Chemical Co. caused the properties owned by the Class
Representatives and the other Class Members in the Property Class
Area (see map at www.RockyFlatsSettlement.com) to be contaminated
with plutonium, a hazardous radioactive substance, which caused
the properties' values to be less than they otherwise would have
been and which substantially interfered with Class Members' use
and enjoyment of their property.  The case is Cook et al. v.
Rockwell International Corp. and The Dow Chemical Co., Civil
Action No. 90-00181-JLK (D. Colo.).  The parties have agreed to
settle to avoid additional delay and uncertainty in a case that
already is over 26 years old but, before any money is paid, the
proposed settlement must be approved by the Court.

Who is a Class Member?
The Property Class (or "Class") includes all persons and entities
that owned an interest (other than mortgagee and other security
interests) in real property within the Property Class Area on June
7, 1989 (one day after a famous FBI raid of the plant site).  If
you are an heir of someone (or the successor of an entity) who
owned property on June 7, 1989 in the Property Class Area, you may
also file a claim.

What Does the Settlement Provide?
Defendants will pay $375 million (the "Settlement Fund") to pay
Class Members and to pay attorneys' fees (not to exceed 40% of the
Settlement Fund) and costs and expenses.  Also, Class Counsel will
ask for service awards totaling $780,000 to the Class
Representatives for their efforts during over 26 years of
litigation.  Additionally, the Settlement Fund will pay for the
costs of Notice and settlement administration.  The remainder (the
"Net Settlement Fund") will be divided among Class Members.

What are my options?
To get a share of the Net Settlement Fund, you must file a claim
by June 1, 2017.  Payments will be calculated as a percentage of
the Net Settlement Fund based on the value of the property owned
and located within the Class Area as of June 7, 1989.  You may opt
out of the Class and Settlement by March 1, 2017.  If you opt out
you will not receive any money if the Settlement is approved, but
you retain your right to pursue your own lawsuit with your own
lawyer.  Your own lawyer can advise you about whether your claims
may be barred by the statute of limitations.  If you do not opt
out, you can object to any part of the Settlement on or before
March 1, 2017.  If you do not opt out, you will remain in the
Class and be bound by the terms of the Settlement.

A public hearing will be held on April 28, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. MDT,
in Courtroom A802 at the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse,
901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294.  The Court will consider
whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.  If there
are objections, the Court will consider them.  If the hearing
time/date changes, it will be posted at
www.RockyFlatsSettlement.com

After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the
Settlement.  You or your attorney may attend the hearing at your
own expense, but you don't have to.

This is a summary only.  For more information, including a longer
Notice, the Settlement, the claim form, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, the motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs
and expenses and for service awards (when filed on or before
January 12, 2017), and a list of important deadlines, visit
www.RockyFlatsSettlement.com or call 1-844-528-0187.


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
root9B Technologies (OTCQB: RTNB) announced on September 22 that
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has
dismissed, with prejudice, the securities class action litigation
originally filed in June 2015 against root9B Technologies and
certain of the Company's officers and directors.

"We are very pleased with the Court's decision and believe the
ruling supports our position that the lawsuit was frivolous and
without merit," said Joseph Grano, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of root9B Technologies. "We have always had tremendous
confidence in the platform that Eric Hipkins and his team at
root9B have built and are proud of the company's ability to
develop best-in-class cybersecurity solutions."

The plaintiffs have a right to file an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within 30 days of the
District Court's judgment.

A full copy of the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado's judgment issued on September 21, 2016 is posted at:
http://www.root9btechnologies.com/news/root9b-announces-dismissal-
of-class-action-lawsuit.html


ROYAL CROWN: Court OKs 3rd Party Funding w/o Notice to Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Bjorkquist -- sbjorkquist@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that should a
court hear from a defendant before approving third party funding
of a class action against that defendant? As we have previously
commented, courts in Ontario have usually answered "yes" to that
question. However, in Schneider v Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc a
Saskatchewan court took a different approach: Chief Justice
Popescul approved a litigation financing and indemnity agreement
("LFA") without any notice to the defendants. Although he left
open the possibility of the defendants challenging the LFA in the
future, his reasons suggest that generally courts do not need to
hear from defendants before approving third party funding.

The Schneider Decision

The plaintiff started a class action claiming that he and other
class members lost money investing in a gold property because of
the defendants' alleged deceit, negligent and statutory
misrepresentations, negligence, and breach of contract. That class
action was certified in 2012.

In 2015, Saskatchewan went from being a "no costs jurisdiction" to
a "costs jurisdiction" as a result of amendments to that
province's Class Actions Act, exposing the plaintiff to the risk
of a significant costs award if his action was eventually
dismissed. To address that risk, the plaintiff entered into the
LFA and then applied for court approval of that agreement.

Relying on decisions in other provinces approving similar
agreements, Chief Justice Popescul concluded that the court has
jurisdiction to approve the LFA. He also decided to approve the
LFA and grant a sealing order requested by the plaintiff.

Chief Justice Popescul then considered whether the plaintiff
should have given notice of his motion to the defendants. He
concluded that the defendants did not have any legal interest in
the motion, and notice was not required because it did not matter
"from whose pocket an adverse cost award is paid". However, Chief
Justice Popescul also stated that a copy of his order should be
served on the defendants and, because the motion had been brought
without notice, the defendants could apply to set aside or vary
the order in the future.

Implication for Defendants

The decision in Schneider, like earlier decisions in Alberta and
New Brunswick, can be contrasted with the approach taken in
Ontario and British Columbia, where courts have concluded that the
defendants' participation is of assistance to the court. In Fehr v
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and in Bayens v Kinross Gold
Corporation, Justice Perell held that defendants are affected by
third party funding motions and they should be given the
opportunity to participate in such motions. However, more recently
in Berg v Canadian Hockey League, Justice Perell was willing to
modify that approach and exclude the defendants from part or all
of the process because of the unique nature and sensitivities of
the agreement before him in that case.

Unlike Berg, the decision in Schneider was not restricted to the
particular agreement before the court. Rather, contrary to the
approach in Ontario, the decision suggests that defendants are
generally not affected by third party funding agreements such that
plaintiffs will usually not be required to provide notice when
seeking court approval of such agreements. That being said, the
decision does not leave defendants without any recourse. As noted,
Chief Justice Popescul observed that the defendants could apply to
set aside or vary his order. That process puts the onus on
defendants to take steps that they would not generally have to
take in Ontario to ensure participation (especially in cases where
the agreement and the court record are subject to a sealing
order).

As these issues increasingly come before the courts, defendants
who face parallel class actions in more than one province may have
very different rights if a third party funding motion is brought
in one province versus the next. Further, disclosure of materials
in one province may effectively undermine a confidentiality order
made in another. Unless and until the approaches taken in
different provinces becomes more harmonious, defendants must be
mindful of these inconsistent rights of participation in third
party funding motions.


SALINAS ECUADORIAN: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DELMY ALFARO, on behalf of herself and Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v.
SALINAS ECUADORIAN BAR & RESTAURANT CORP. and MANUEL MOROCHO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05252 (E.D.N.Y., September 21, 2016),
seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2)
unpaid overtime, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and (1) unpaid
minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime, (3) unpaid spread of hours
premium, (4) statutory penalties, (5) liquidated damages; and (6)
attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor Law.

Salinas Ecuadorian Bar & Restaurant Corporation. is a small,
fairly new organization in the drinking places industry located in
Corona, NY. It opened its doors in 2011 and now has an estimated
$178,714 in yearly revenue and 7 employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMUEL JEWELERS: "Jafari" Seeks to Recoup Pay Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nazila Jafari, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. SAMUEL JEWELERS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GITANJALI USA, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 634106 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, September 15, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime compensation, unpaid
split shift premium wages, wages for meal and rest break
violations, statutory penalties, restitution, punitive damages, as
well as other damages owed pursuant to  the California Labor Code,
California Civil Code, and California Business and Professions
Code.

SAMUELS JEWELERS, INC. owns and/or operates numerous jewelry
stores within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
     Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq.
     Kiran Preet Dhillon, Esq.
     BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
     8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 855-3270
     Fax: (310) 855-3751
     Email: berenji@employeejustice.law
            kazandjian@employeejustice.law
            dhillon@employeejustice.law


SANTA FE, NM: Inmates Sue Over Delayed Conditions of Release
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Howerton, writing for KOAT, reports that a federal class
action lawsuit against the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office and
the Santa Fe County Jail says inmates aren't seeing judges fast
enough to have their conditions of release set.

Under New Mexico law, anyone charged or indicted must have their
conditions of release set by a judge within 15 days of their
arrest.

An inmate's bond that he or she has to pay to get out of jail is
set when a judge finalizes their conditions of release.

Yet some inmates in the Santa Fe County Jail have to wait weeks,
even months, before they see a judge, said attorney Todd Coberly.

Mr. Coberly is representing two inmates who spent an estimated 30
and 60 days behind bars before seeing a judge.

But after researching booking and court documents, Mr. Coberly
said at least 150 inmates have not seen judges to have their
conditions of release set within 15 days.

He said the longest delay was more than four months.

"This is not Guantanamo Bay where people can just be detained for
long periods of time without due process," Mr. Coberly said.
"There's a systemic issue happening in Santa Fe. People's
constitutional rights are being violated on a regular basis."

Mr. Coberly couldn't explain why inmates weren't seeing judges
fast enough to have their conditions of release set, but said by
law the burden of getting inmates to a judge falls on the
sheriff's office and the jail.

"Under state law, they are the ones who are ultimately responsible
for ensuring the detainees at the jail get their due process," Mr.
Coberly said.

Mr. Coberly showed Action 7 News e-mails from the sheriff's office
responding to a public records request for any policies or
procedures on file related to getting inmates to judges to have
their conditions of release set.

In those e-mails, the sheriff's office said it did not have any
such records on file.

Action 7 News contacted Santa Fe County's legal department to
understand what's the issue, but calls were not returned.


SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LANCASTER: Issa Seeks ELL Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Khadidja Issa; Q.M.H., a
minor, individually, by and through his parent, Faisa Ahmed
Abdalla; Alembe Dunia; Anyemu Dunia; V.N.L., a minor,
individually, by and through her parent Mar Ki; Sui Hnem Sung; and
all others similarly situated v. The School District of Lancaster,
Case No. 5:16-cv-03881-EGS (E.D. Pa.), move the Court for an order
provisionally certifying their proposed class, and clarifying and
extending the terms of the Court's August 26, 2016 injunction
order to Class Members.

According to the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for provisional
class certification, the Plaintiffs return to the Court seeking
specific relief for similarly-situated immigrant English Language
Learners who, without the Court's protection, will continue to
allegedly suffer irreparable harm caused by the District's refusal
to honor the Court's August 26, 2016, preliminary injunction
ruling.

Hence, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court modify its August 26
Order to:

   (a) expressly enjoin the District from continuing its illegal
       enrollment and placement practices;

   (b) provisionally certify the class proposed in the
       Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   (c) expressly extend the injunction order to Class Members;

   (d) authorize the Plaintiffs to serve additional discovery
       requests aimed at identifying Class Members and
       determining their enrollment status; and

   (e) order the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiffs'
       discovery requests.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          247 Fort Pitt Blvd.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 681-7736
          Facsimile: (412) 681-8707
          E-mail: VWalczak@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Molly Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          Michelin Cahill, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          P.O. Box 60173
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 592-1513
          Facsimile: (215) 592-1343
          E-mail: MTack-Hooper@aclupa.org
                  MCahill@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Kathleen A. Mullen, Esq.
          Megan Morley, Esq.
          Hedya Aryani, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: mullenk@pepperlaw.com
                  gurneyk@pepperlaw.com
                  morleym@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Maura McInerney, Esq.
          Kristina Moon, Esq.
          Alex Dutton, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          1315 Walnut Street Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-6907
          Facsimile: (215) 772-3125
          E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org
                  kmoon@elc-pa.org
                  adutton@elc-pa.org

               - and -

          Seth F. Kreimer, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL
          3501 Sansom Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 898-7447
          E-mail: skreimer@law.upenn.edu


SHINE LAWYERS: Faces Risk of Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that a second
listed law firm, Shine Lawyers, faces the risk of a shareholder
class action after the collapse of its share price.

Shine Lawyers is being targeted by a newly launched class action
adviser over a series of announcements that preceded February's 75
per cent decline in its share price.

That wiped more than $253 million from Shine's market
capitalisation.

Investor Claims Partner, which is being launched on September 22,
is assembling a register of institutional shareholders who bought
Shine shares in the five months before February. ICP's research
shows that throughout that period Shine provided annual earnings
guidance of between $52m and $56m before downgrading this on
January 29 to between $24m and $28m.

Shine joins Slater & Gordon, which is also being targeted for
possible class actions by rival law firms ACA Lawyers and Maurice
Blackburn.

Shine, which has 48 offices and more than 700 staff, disclosed in
August month that its net profit for the year to June had fallen
by 50 per cent to $14.8m.

In February Shine revealed that its net profit had plunged by 90
per cent for the six months to December from $13.3m to $1.3m.

However, Shine is still pursuing several class actions of its own
and uses US legal identity Erin Brockovich as its "ambassador".

The possible claim against Shine was referred to ICP by litigation
specialist Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan after an approach
from shareholders. It is one of three potential class actions that
ICP is unveiling on September 22.

Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini said Shine had been over-
estimating how much it would be able to recover from the firm's
work in progress.

"They record the hours they have spent and they record it as
revenue, whereas it is only hours they have spent. They have not
recovered it at all," Mr Scattini said.

"They grossly over-estimated the amount they would recover."

Shine issued a statement denying any wrongdoing.

"Shine has not been contacted by the firm in question in relation
to any potential cause of action," it says. "Shine has, at all
times, met its continuous disclosure obligations including
compliance with the Australian accounting standards and refutes
any statements to the contrary."

ICP's chief executive and founder is John Walker, a former
executive director of Bentham IMF, which is the nation's largest
litigation funder. His new company is not a funder but instead
acts as an adviser to institutional shareholders that identifies
potential claims (see accompanying report). The other possible
claims he has unveiled are against Sims Metal and Spotless, which
have both suffered significant falls in their share price.

ICP's research shows the market capitalisation of Sims Metal fell
by $530m in November last year after it effectively halved its
earnings guidance. It had stated in September that its targets had
been reviewed and were realistic.

The possible claim against Spotless concerns a decline in market
capitalisation of $961m in December when the company said its
earnings outlook was flat and profit would be down 10 per cent.

In October, ICP's research shows Spotless shareholders were told
to expect the annual results to materially exceed those of the
year before.

Shine was floated in 2013 and subsequently has acquired several
small practices including Western Australia's Stephen Browne
Personal Injury Lawyers and north Queensland's Emanate Legal.


SIRIUS XM: Aware of Potential Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Canada Holdings Inc., the parent of Sirius XM Canada
Inc., announced that the Company is aware of Applications for
Authorization to Institute a Class Action that have been filed
with the Superior Court (Quebec). The Applications seek to
authorize the bringing of class action litigation against the
Company in connection with Quebec's Consumer Protection Act and
includes bringing a class action litigation against certain other
prominent Canadian companies in the media, technology,
telecommunication and financial sectors in addition to the
Company. The Company has retained legal counsel and intends to
vigorously defend itself against any potential class action
litigation.

The Company does not intend to comment further upon this matter
unless and until it deems further disclosure is appropriate or
required by law.


SIZMEK INC: Faces "Burns" Lawsuit Over Sale to Vector Capital
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BURNS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. HARRIS, NEIL H. NGUYEN, SCOTT K.
GINSBURG, XAVIER A. GUTIERREZ, ADAM KLEIN, CECIL H. MOORE, STEPHEN
E. RECHT, ALEX MERUELO LIVING TRUST, MERUELO INVESTMENT PARTNERS
LLC, ALEX MERUELO, SIZMEK, INC., SOLOMON HOLDING, LLC, SOLOMON
MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC., VECTOR SOLOMON HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.,
VECTOR CAPITAL IV, LP, VECTOR CAPITAL IV INTERNATIONAL, LP, and
VECTOR ENTREPRENEUR FUND II, LP,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01073 (W.D. Tex., September 15,
2016), alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in
connection with the ongoing private transaction between Sizmek and
Vector, whereby Vector will acquire Sizmek through a tender offer
for the inadequate consideration of $3.90 per share.

SIZMEK, INC. is an open ad management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Murtaza Sutarwalla, Esq.
     George Edwards, Esq.
     EDWARDS SUTARWALLA PLLC
     2555 N. MacGregor Way, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77004
     Phone: (832) 717-2562
     Fax: (713) 583-8715
     Email: murtaza@eslawpartners.com
            george@eslawpartners.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: 212-983-9330
     Fax: 212-983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue
     59th Floor New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 601-2610
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Russell, writing for Market Exclusive, reports that SolarCity
Corp is facing accusations of violating federal securities laws,
leading to losses for some of its investors. A class action
lawsuit against the company has commenced in a U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. Securities litigation law
firm Brower Piven is representing the affected investors and
search for the lead plaintiff in the class action litigation is
on.

                         The Class Period

The class action lawsuit against SolarCity covers the period from
May 5, 2015 through Feb. 9, 2016. However, Brower Piven recently
said in a press release that no class has been certified.

Investors who acquired or held shares of SolarCity during the
class period and suffered losses of more than $100,000 can apply
to be lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.

However, time seems to be running out because candidates for lead
plaintiff have until October 14, 2016 to make their application.
The court will be involved in the selection of the lead plaintiff
who should be among those who suffered the highest losses.

The lead plaintiff will play a number of critical roles in the
litigation. For instance, the lead plaintiff will take charge of
directing the litigation on behalf of other class investors. As
such, the lead plaintiff will participate in the making of
important decisions such as accepting or rejecting a settlement
offer in the lawsuit. The lead plaintiff will also choose the
counsel for the case.

                      What's the complaint?

The complaint against SolarCity says that the company failed to
disclose to shareholders that demand for its products was
shrinking. So investors kept buying the stock until SolarCity
began to lower its financial performance guidance, thus sparking a
selloff that destroyed value for the class investors.

                    Cash-strapped solar company

SolarCity is currently in a difficult financial situation that it
has been trying to sell off some of its assets to stay afloat. The
company has agreed to be acquired by electric car maker Tesla
Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) for $2.3 billion. But Tesla recently
warned that closing the deal with SCTY was likely to be delayed by
shareholder litigations.


SOUTHERN PACPIZZA: Tony Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
TONY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN PACPIZZA, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-05434-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 22, 2016), seeks
relief on a collective basis challenging SPP's practice of failing
to pay drivers the federal minimum wage, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant allegedly failed to reasonably reimburse Class
members for using their own vehicles to deliver Defendant's pizzas
and other food items.

SPP's systematic failure to adequately reimburse automobile
expenses constitutes a "kickback" to SPP such that the hourly
wages it pays to Plaintiff and SPP's other delivery drivers are
not paid free and clear of all outstanding obligations to SPP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: jweissglass@altber.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997 9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997 9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorney.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL MCINNES LLP
          601 Walnut St., Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 63106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984 8101
          E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Ayeni" Securities Suit Over Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLUTAYO AYENI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RAJESH C.
SHROTRIYA, KURT A. GUSTAFSON, JOSEPH TURGEON, and LEE ALLEN,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-07074 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2016),
alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act in connection
with disclosures relating to its apaziquone product.

Defendant Spectrum is a biotechnology company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing drug products, with a
primary focus in Hematology and Oncology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


STATE FARM: Racketeering Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a federal
racketeering lawsuit involving State Farm and allegations of
funneling money into the election of a state judge has been
granted class-action status, potentially benefiting more than 4
million policyholders.

In 2012, plaintiffs that included Mark Hale of New York and
Todd Shadle of Texas filed a two-count, class-action lawsuit in a
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The
class could include 4.7 million policyholders, court documents
show.

They alleged that, starting in 2003, State Farm conducted a
racketeering enterprise to enable the insurer to evade payment of
a $1.05 billion judgment that had been affirmed by the Illinois
Appellate Court.

The underlying case had involved a class action suit filed in 1997
regarding claims for damage to cars between 1987 and 1998 that
were repaired with nonoriginal equipment manufacturer parts. It
led to the $1.05 billion verdict.

In a 29-page order on Sept. 16, U.S. District Judge David Herndon
recapped the plaintiff's allegations, which sought to disqualify
Judge Lloyd Karmeier from participating in the appeal, "having
received reliable information that State Farm had exerted
financial and political influence" to get Judge Lloyd Karmeier
elected to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The request was denied and in August 2005, "with now-Justice
Karmeier participating in the court's deliberations and casting
his vote in State Farm's favor, the Illinois Supreme Court issued
a decision overturning the $1.05 billion judgment," Herndon wrote.

State Farm "recruited Karmeier, directed his campaign, had
developed a vast network of contributors and funneled as much as
$4 million to the campaign," according to Herndon's summary of the
complaint.  "Then, after achieving Karmeier's election, State Farm
deliberately concealed all of this from the Illinois Supreme Court
while its appeal was pending."

State Farm spokeswoman Missy Dundov said the insurer is
"disappointed in the court decision on the class certification
question and respectfully disagree with it."

Ms. Dundov said State Farm plans to ask the appellate court to
review the ruling.

On Sept. 19, the Illinois Supreme Court said Judge Karmeier would
be its next chief justice.  Judge Karmeier is not a defendant in
the lawsuit.

The 2012 case, if successful, could result in a more than a $7.6
billion payout from State Farm for the class, due partly to the
interest that has accrued, according to Clifford Law Offices,
which is representing policyholders.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/TEE8Id from Leagle.com.


TESLA MOTORS: Shareholders Suits Hamper SolarCity Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
David Welch, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Tesla Motors Inc. faces a potential delay in its acquisition of
SolarCity Corp. from four shareholder lawsuits, creating added
urgency as both companies use up cash.

The suits by four different shareholders, outlined in a regulatory
filing Sept. 19, all allege that Tesla's executives and board
breached their fiduciary duty by entering into the pact because
Chairman Elon Musk and other Tesla insiders hold shares in both
companies.  One plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop the
transaction, potentially holding up a deal until a hearing on Oct.
18 at the earliest.  The cases are without merit, Tesla said in
the filing.

While shareholder litigation is common in deals and Delaware
courts tend to side with management, the companies' entwined
nature may bring greater scrutiny.  That could be troublesome for
both firms: Tesla plans to raise cash later this year both to
further develop electric cars and to fund the merged company's
operations, and SolarCity disclosed after its second-quarter
earnings that it was getting close to default on its existing
debt.

"It will be very difficult for the courts to blow this off," said
James Cox, a professor at the Duke University School of Law. "It's
a high-profile case, it's a self-dealing case.  This gets a much
deeper look than most others would."

Tesla will oppose the lawsuits, the company said in an e-mailed
statement.  "Simply because someone uses litigation to try to
delay an acquisition does not mean it will be successful," the
statement said.  "At this point, it is not yet known if anyone
will even end up pursuing such a request."

Need for Cash
Both companies are unprofitable and need cash.  In this year's
first half, SolarCity spent $1.3 billion on operations and
investments in its business, about twice what Tesla spent.  The
combined company will have about $5.2 billion in debt, according
to pro forma financial statements in the regulatory filings.

"There is a bit more urgency for the Tesla-SolarCity deal to go
through sooner so that SolarCity can get the access to capital
that it needs," Barclays analyst Brian Johnson wrote in an Aug. 31
research note.  Shareholder votes were possible by early to mid-
October, he wrote at the time.

Four Lawsuits
The lawsuits were filed by the City of Riviera Beach Pension Fund,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, and individual shareholders P.
Evan Stephens and Ellen Prasinos.  They seek to force Tesla to
rescind the merger proposal and pay damages to the shareholders,
and one seeks to establish a class action against Tesla.

According to the filing, the Delaware Chancery Court set a
schedule on Sept. 16 to consolidate the actions and determine a
leadership structure for the plaintiffs.

In court documents, Tesla argued that there is no need to hold up
the deal because the plaintiffs could seek damages from the merged
company later.  The plaintiff in the Prasinos case countered that
shareholders would sustain irreparable harm if the deal goes
through as planned in the fourth quarter and asked the judge to
expedite the case.

The merger proposal initially met resistance in part because Musk
owns more than 20 percent of both companies and his cousins Lyndon
Rive and Peter Rive are SolarCity's chief executive officer and
chief technical officer, respectively.  Tesla shares, which had
fallen 10 percent the first trading day after the deal was
proposed, rose 1.2 percent to $207.85 at 11:20 a.m. in New York.

SolarCity announced a week ago that it raised $305 million through
two deals.  The first was selling future cash flows from SolarCity
developments to Quantum Strategic Partners Ltd., a fund advised by
the billionaire George Soros; the second was an 18-year-loan from
a syndicate of five lenders.


TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural Label"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a Monroe County woman is suing a drink products manufacturer,
alleging unfair merchandising practices with "all natural" label.

April Dugan filed a class action complaint, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated who are current citizens of
Illinois, Aug. 24 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Topco
Associates LLC, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Ms. Dugan suffered financial damages
for paying a premium for an almond milk product that is worth less
than what was represented.  The plaintiff alleges Topco
prominently represented that its almond milk product is "all
natural" when it contains synthetic, unnatural substances.

The suit also says Topco misled consumers into thinking its
product contains less sugar than it actually does.

Dugan seeks trial by jury, an order certifying this case as a
class action, appointing the plaintiff and her counsel as class
representative, compensatory damages, enjoining the defendant from
engaging in false marketing of its product, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorney fees, court costs and all other relief.  She is
represented by attorneys David C. Nelson of Nelson & Nelson in
Belleville, Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm in St.
Louis, and by Stuart L. Cochran of Cochran Law PLLC in Dallas.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-446

Organizations in this Story

St. Clair County Circuit Court


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Policyholders File Bad Faith Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that rip
off is a harsh term, although one plaintiffs embroiled in Life
Insurance Rip Off lawsuits use with complete comfort.  At the very
least, consumers holding universal life insurance policies
currently facing massive rate increases are stuck with a classic
catch 22 situation, in that policyholders annoyed with rising
premiums, or unable to pay them, have few alternatives given their
age.

Consumers Hit with Massive Universal Life Premiums Join Class
Action

In most instances, any individual 55-plus shopping for life
insurance would be facing high premiums unless their health proved
pristine. Few people at middle age are without some health issues.

An increasing 'catch 22' faced by consumers having had the
foresight to buy universal life insurance policies -- products
which have a cash value and are designed for long-term (as opposed
to shorter-term 'term insurance') -- represents an environment
whereby premiums for universal life policies are skyrocketing.

One couple identified in The New York Times (05/20/16) are facing
a conundrum over rising rates on their universal life policy.
Lloyd Tanner, of Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, purchased a
universal life insurance policy from Transamerica in 1992 for
$250,000.  Mr. Tanner and his wife Carolyn have been told their
monthly premiums could quadruple in the coming years, escalating
their monthly premium to as high as $2,900 per month.

Lloyd Tanner is in his seventies and is in poor health.  The
Tanners can't afford such an increase.  "We still do not
understand how Transamerica can do this," Carolyn Tanner told The
New York Times.

Transamerica, which defends the increases as necessary, takes the
position that policyholders are not being charged anything above
maximum rates specified in the contractual language of their
polices.

Policyholders are having none of it, and have filed a Bad Faith
Life Insurance lawsuit.  The litigation is proposed as a class
action.

The New York Times notes in its report that universal life
policies -- unlike basic life insurance or straight term insurance
-- feature a savings component or 'cash value' that accrues over
time.  The cash value accrues based on interest rates that were
agreed to at the time the policies were put in force.

In the 1980s and 1990s -- the decades during which universal life
policies were most popular -- interest rates were much higher than
they are now.

The Life Insurance Rip Off lawsuit filed in February takes
Transamerica to task for sharp increases in the monthly deduction
rate, which The New York Times describes as the amount taken from
policyholders' accounts to cover premiums, the cost of the
policy's death benefit and other expenses and fees.  The lawsuit
asserts that Transamerica is putting through these increases as a
pretext to avoid paying policyholders the higher interest rates
agreed to when the policies were sold.

The Bad Faith Life Insurance lawsuit holds that Transamerica is
breaching the terms of its universal policies by doing so.

Transamerica disagrees.

"In 2015, based on its expectations about future performance of
certain universal life policies, Transamerica prospectively
increased monthly rates of these older policies," said
Gregory Tucker, a spokesman for Transamerica, in an emailed
statement to The New York Times.  No policyholders are being
charged more than the maximum rates specified in their policies,
with premiums based on multiple factors, including "interest,
mortality, taxes and expenses associated with the policy.

"Transamerica is in full compliance with its contractual
obligations and intends to contest vigorously the recently filed
litigation," Mr. Tucker said.

Transamerica is not the only player raising their rates.  Other
companies, such as AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and Voya
Financial, are reported to be also pushing through rate increases.
Some policyholders have reported rate increases of as much as 38,
or 40 percent.

Policyholders can opt not to pay the increased premiums, but the
consequences are not in their favor, since insurance companies can
get their money anyway by deducting from the cash value of the
universal life policy until the cash value is depleted.  At that
point, without the policyholder paying the increased premiums and
with a depleted cash value, the policy suddenly lapses.

Policyholders have the option of surrendering their policies
(rather than pay the higher premiums) and take whatever cash value
there is -- but they could be taxed on the income.  And by
surrendering their policy, they have summarily discontinued their
life insurance coverage. Shopping for a new policy -- and finding
a viable and affordable option -- would prove difficult given the
seeker's advancing age and potential for health issues, which
makes insurance more expensive.

Faced with the inability to pay increased premiums with their
existing policy, and with an inability to source an affordable
alternative, many consumers will be filing a Denied Life Insurance
Claim lawsuit.

Some policyholders have, indeed, surrendered their universal life
policies due to the rate increases. The class action Life
Insurance Rip Off lawsuit against Transamerica is seeking
reinstatement of any policy surrendered as the result of the rate
increases.  The lawsuit also seeks a reversal of the premium
increases, and damages.

The Consumer Federation of America is urging the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners to examine the
justification of rate increases at the state level.

"It does not take much imagination to imagine that millions of
[universal life] policyholders will be adversely affected if
insurers are free to raise" their rate schedules, says
James H. Hunt, the consumer federation's life insurance actuary,
in a letter to the association.

Class plaintiffs in the Bad Faith Life Insurance lawsuit argue
that language in existing universal life policies bar Transamerica
from recovering "past losses by changing the monthly deduction
rates."

The Life Insurance Rip Off lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles.  The
case is Feller et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01378, US District Court, Central District of
California.  Lead plaintiff Mary Feller is a freelance writer in
San Francisco.  According to The New York Times, Ms. Feller and
her husband Gordon purchased universal life policies from
Transamerica in 1989 as security for their retirement years.

"It's represented as the best of both worlds," Ms. Feller, now 62,
said in a phone interview.  "It has life insurance to protect your
family, and a nest egg when you choose to cash out."

Their rates have increased over 40 percent, and Ms. Feller fears
increases will be even bigger.  The Fellers expect they would have
to work longer just to pay the higher rates to maintain the
policies, or to make up the six years of retirement income they
would lose were the policies to be surrendered.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Frausto Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DIEGO FRAUSTO, on behalf of
himself and the class members described below v. TRANSWORLD
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-09016 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court
to enter an order determining that his Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act action may proceed as a class action against TSI.

Mr. Frausto defines the class as (a) all individuals (b) from whom
TSI sought to collect a purported debt (c) from the recipient of a
Federal Express shipment (d) including a collection fee (e) where
any correspondence or other collection activity occurred on or
after a date one year prior to the filing of this action.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RmnCqZl3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Sarah M. Barnes, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com


TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Tropical Smoothie Cafe LLC should be ordered to notify customers
of their possible exposure to hepatitis A in strawberry smoothies
served between January and August, according to a class action
complaint filed in a Georgia state court Sept. 2 (Kiker v.
Tropical Smoothie Cafe, LLC, Ga. Super. Ct., No. 2016CV279710,
filed 9/2/16).

Two classes are proposed in the complaint: One for all persons in
the U.S. who consumed food at the restaurants, and another to
compensate customers who develop the virus.

Named plaintiff Samantha Kiker, of Roswell, Ga., says she decided
to get a vaccination after she "consumed food products from
Tropical Smoothie Cafe LLC that contained strawberries between
January 2016 and August 2016."

She also contends Tropical Smoothie Cafe "concealed, and then only
partially disclosed, the fact that its foods were contaminated
with Hepatitis A," depriving customers of a two-week window within
which a vaccination would be effective.

A spokeswoman for Tropical Smoothie Cafe declined to comment.

The action is the third filed over the outbreak, which the the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration traced to strawberries imported
from Egypt.  Two other suits, including a would-be class action
seeking compensation for required vaccinations, are pending
against the company in Virginia.

Tropical Smoothie Cafe, based in Atlanta, recalled all of the
suspect strawberries Aug. 8, and switched to another supplier for
all of its restaurants, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

The CDC's Sept. 8 update on the outbreak states: "Information
available at this time does not indicate an ongoing risk of
hepatitis A virus infection at Tropical Smoothie Cafes."

89 Sickened in 7 States

The outbreak total may grow larger still because hepatitis A
symptoms may develop as long as 50 days after exposure, according
to the CDC.

The first cases were reported in Virginia in early August, and the
outbreak has since sickened at least 89 people in seven states,
according to the CDC.

Of those cases, 70 were in Virginia as of Sept. 8, with other
cases in Maryland (10), New York (1), North Carolina (1), Oregon
(1), West Virginia (5) and Wisconsin (1), the CDC said.

Hepatitis A is a highly contagious liver disease usually
transmitted by ingestion of even microscopic amounts of fecal
matter; by contact with an infected person; or by consumption of
contaminated objects, food or drinks.


TRUMP PAC: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Kaczynski, writing for BuzzFeedNews, reports that a pro-
Donald Trump political action committee that has raised almost
$800,000 responded to an inquiry from the Federal Election
Commission asking why the group's filings lack basic information
about its spending and contributions.

BuzzFeed News reported in August that Liberty Action Group has run
radio ads soliciting donations to help elect Trump but has
provided little evidence in its FEC filings as to where that money
is being spent.  The PAC is currently being sued in federal court
in a class action complaint alleging the group robocalled
thousands of people without their consent.

The FEC sent a letter to the group in August requesting more
information about the organization's donors and about those who
received payments from the group.

The PAC's director, 24-year-old Josiah Cammer, responded to FEC,
writing in a letter that the group was unaware that they needed to
list basic information about their donors in public filings and
said they are attempting to ask their donor base for that
information to refile to the FEC.

"The organization is committed and in agreement on resolving both
outlined issues," Mr. Cammer wrote in his letter.  "Regarding
requested donor occupation information, the organization was not
informed nor aware that such information was required therefore,
the data was not captured during the initial request.  After
receiving the letter requesting this information, we've emailed
the contributor base requesting this information."

"As of Sept. 20, we have received a response from more than 10% of
our donors.  As soon as we receive the response from 80% of the
donors, we will update and resubmit our first quarter reports," he
said.  "Regarding requesting address and purpose of the itemized
disbursements, we've re-submitted as requested."

Mr. Cammer said in the letter that they had refiled information in
their April quarterly report on where money was spent, but a
review of refiled paperwork reveals that basic information, such
as addresses for those who received disbursements, is still
lacking.  Filings from the July report also do not list the
purpose for money spent, or the address of those who received the
payments.

Mr. Cammer did not respond to a request to comment.  Other listed
contacts for the PAC, such as Robert Reyes of Modern Media Group
LLC and Matt Tunstall, who sources said is involved with running
the PAC, also did not respond for a request for comment.


TWITTER INC: "Shenwick" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Doris Shenwick, as Trustee for the Doris Shenwick Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Twitter, Inc., Richard Costolo and Anthony Noto,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05314, (N.D. Cal., September 16,
2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Twitter is a social media company operating online as Twitter.com.
Its main source of revenue is advertising. Twitter stock plummeted
$5.30 per share to close at $31.24 per share on July 29, 2015, a
one-day decline of nearly 15% on volume of nearly 93 million
shares after reporting lower monthly average users for the period.
The stock has not recovered and presently trades at less than $20
per share. Plaintiff acquired Twitter common stock between
February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015 and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534

           - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423

           - and -

       Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
       ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
       One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805
       New York, NY 10119
       Telephone: (212) 279-5050
       Fax: (212) 279-3655


TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California on behalf of those
who purchased shares of Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or the "Company")
between February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015 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").

Twitter is an online global social networking service that enables
users to send and read short 140-character messages called
"tweets".  Twitter's main source of revenue is advertising.
Advertising income is driven by the number of users the level of
engagement of such users.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that by early 2015, Twitter's daily active users
(DAUs) had switched the timeline views metric as the main user
engagement metric which is tracked internally by Twitter
management; (2) that the trend in user engagement growth was
lessening; (3) that new product initiatives were not having a
significant impact on monthly active users (MAUs) or user
engagement; (4) that Twitter stated "acceleration" was the result
of low-quality monthly active user growth; (5) and that Twitter
lacked a basis for its previously disclosed estimates of about 20%
MAU growth and 550 million MAU in the immediate term.

On April 28, 2015, Twitter announced its first quarter 2015
financial results and its projections for the second quarter of
2015, with an estimated second quarter revenue between $470
million to $485 million.  Twitter also reduced its full year 2015
revenue forecast from a previous guidance of $2.30 billion to
$2.35 billion to $2.17 billion and $2.27 billion.  Following this
news, Twitter stock dropped $9.39 per share, or 18.18%, to close
at $42.27 on April 28, 2015. Later, on July 28, 2015, post-market,
Twitter announced its second quarter 2015 financial results and
projections for the third quarter of 2015, estimating revenue
between $545 million to $560 million.  Twitter also projecting
revenue for 2015 full year in the range of $2.20 billion to $2.27
billion.  Following this news, Twitter stock dropped $5.30 per
share, or 14.51%, close at $31.24 on July 29, 2015

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/twtror contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Twitter, you have until November 15, 2016 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  It represents institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as
well as securities arbitration.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lamour Amends Bid to Certify Class of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JEAN EDNER LAMOUR and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21449-JEM (S.D. Fla.), amends his motion to conditionally certify
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Lamour has sued Uber under the FLSA seeking minimum wages,
overtime wages, and undistributed tips for all similarly situated
Uber drivers nationwide -- specifically, on behalf of these
persons:

     Every person who (a) drove for Uber as UberX, Uber Black or
     Uber SUV drivers within the United States in the applicable
     statute(s) of limitations and through the entry of judgment
     in this case (the "Collective Action Period"), and (b) has
     not timely opted out of the arbitration provision contained
     in his/her applicable services agreement with Uber and/or
     any of Uber's subsidiaries.

In addition, Mr. Lamour seeks an order authorizing the
dissemination of proposed notice to the collective action members.

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v8QNfBj1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald F. Richman, Esq.
          Adam M. Myron, Esq.
          Joshua L. Spoont, Esq.
          RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
          One Clearlake Center, Suite 1504
          250 Australian Avenue South
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 803-3500
          Facsimile: (561) 820-1608
          E-mail: grichman@richmangreer.com
                  amyron@richmangreer.com
                  jspoont@richmangreer.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Schultz, Esq.
          MERRILL, SCHULTZ AND BENNETT, LIMITED
          2240 Fifth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501-4540
          E-mail: schultz@sbemp.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Schultz, Esq.
          LSRCF Law, PLLC
          1111 Brickell Ave. #2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 760-8544
          E-mail: TSchultz@LSRCF.com

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., is represented by:

          Courtney B. Wilson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: cwilson@littler.com
                  kljackson@littler.com


UBER: Joins Betterment to Provide IRAs
--------------------------------------
Alicia H. Munnell, writing for MarketWatch, reports that the
contingent workforce and retirement plans have been very much on
my mind.  Contingent workers, who by definition do not have an
employer, are not covered by any type of retirement plan.  These
contingent workers are a portion of a larger group of private
sector workers who lack coverage.  Some of this "coverage gap"
would be closed by President Obama's Auto-IRA proposal, which
would require private sector employers not offering a plan to auto
enroll their employees in an IRA.  Of course, this proposal has
not been enacted, so several states - California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon  are well on their way to setting
up their own Auto-IRA plans.  But all these initiatives are aimed
at employers, and therefore do not reach contingent workers.  So
the question remains how the 16 percent of the workforce
classified as contingent workers in one recent study is ever going
to get coverage under a retirement plan.  The new Uber-Betterment
initiative will shed some light on whether coverage can be
improved simply by making the process easy.

Uber has just announced -- in the wake of the scuttling of its
$100 million settlement proposal of a class-action suit -- a plan
that would enable its drivers to sign up for Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs) through their Uber App.  To accomplish this goal,
Uber is partnering with Betterment Inc., a robo-advice provider.
As a pilot, the program will be introduced in four areas - Boston,
Chicago, Seattle, and New Jersey.

Betterment pioneered the business of offering inexpensive
investment advice using algorithms to allocate assets.  That is,
it uses answers to various questions that gauge risk tolerance to
assign customers to various baskets of low-cost exchange-traded
funds.  The deal with Uber gives Betterment direct access to tens
of thousands more customers to add to its current base of about
80,000.  Betterment is waiving its fee for the first year that
drivers use the system and then will charge 0.25 percent of assets
under management.  Generally, the company charges 0.35 percent for
portfolios with less than $10,000 in assets and 0.15 percent for
those with more than $100,000.  In all cases, Betterment does not
require an investment minimum.

Uber's initiative takes place against the background of an all-out
battle to prevent its workers from being classified as employees.
In the class-action suit, Uber drivers in California and
Massachusetts had argued that Uber should treat them as employees
and reimburse them for expenses such as gasoline.  For Uber,
treating their drivers as employees would sharply increase their
costs through required payroll taxes and other benefits.  Uber had
proposed a settlement, but in August a federal judge rejected the
offer as unfair.

Beyond the important issue of whether Uber drivers should be
treated as independent contractors or employees is the question of
how independent contractors can be ensured coverage by a
retirement plan.  The data clearly show that, left on their own,
few Uber drivers will open an IRA.  The interesting and important
question is how many Uber drivers will sign up now when they can
do so easily through their Uber app.  If the Betterment approach
works, that will be big news.


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Certifies Class in Mental Health Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a significant mental health ruling, the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California has come one step
closer to ordering health insurance giant United Behavioral Health
(UBH) to revamp its medical necessity criteria and reprocess
thousands of outpatient, intensive outpatient and residential
treatment claims it denied since 2011.  Plaintiffs in two
companion class-action lawsuits, Wit et al. v. UnitedHealthcare et
al. and Alexander et al. v. United Behavioral Health, allege that
UBH systematically denies coverage for mental health treatment by
developing and applying "medical necessity" criteria that are far
more stringent than generally accepted standards of care.

"The class certification order is an important victory in the
fight for mental health parity," said Meiram Bendat, president of
Psych-Appeal, Inc. and co-counsel for the plaintiffs.  "It signals
that health insurers can be held responsible, on a class-wide
basis, for denying insurance coverage for mental health treatment
to those desperately in need. Without class certification, few, if
any, patients will have the financial or emotional resources
necessary to challenge this type of misconduct individually."

The plaintiffs' health plans, governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), require UBH to evaluate medical
necessity according to generally accepted standards of care. UBH's
proprietary medical necessity criteria purport to reflect these
standards. However, the plaintiffs allege that a push for profits
has led UBH to develop criteria that overemphasize acute mental
health and substance use disorder symptoms and disregard chronic
or complex conditions that require ongoing care, in contravention
of generally accepted standards.

UBH is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group and is the country's
largest managed behavioral health care organization, serving more
than 60 million members.

Psych-Appeal, Inc. and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP have been appointed
class counsel by the federal court and also represent plaintiffs
in similar cases against Health Care Service Corporation (Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Texas, New Mexico, Montana and
Oklahoma), Magellan Health Services of California and Blue Shield
of California.

                   About Psych-Appeal, Inc.

Los Angeles-based Psych-Appeal, Inc. --
http://www.psych-appeal.com-- is a law firm exclusively dedicated
to mental health insurance claims, advocating on behalf of
patients, clinicians and treatment facilities to overcome insurer
denials of treatment.


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Chides Attorneys Over Late Forum Shopping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a recent
Arkansas news article tipped off a federal judge that plaintiffs'
attorneys dismissed their insurance class action from his court
only to refile it in a state court where they believed a pending
settlement would have an easier time getting approved.

The news led the judge to formally reprimand some of the
plaintiffs' attorneys involved.  He also gave a warning to some of
the defense counsel in the case for their complicity in what he
characterized as improper, late-in-the-game forum shopping of a
settlement he characterized as unfair.

It's hard to say how often this kind of maneuvering occurs because
federal judges rarely find out what happens with cases after they
leave their courts.

But two ethics professors commend the court for shining a light on
a settlement and a practice the court found wanting -- one that
benefited class counsel and the defendant at the expense of the
class.

However, the sanctions in this case are being appealed by both the
plaintiffs' attorneys and defense counsel who incurred the court's
wrath.  And, one consumer advocate warns, "forum shopping"
shouldn't be used as a pejorative term across the board.

The attorneys may have just been zealous advocates for their
clients -- doing what they thought they needed to do to get the
deal approved in this instance.

The fact that the deal was found by a court to be unfair -- a
claims-made settlement with a 4 percent claims rate -- is the real
issue, he said.

Newsworthy Settlement Approval

The underlying class action at issue here was originally filed by
Mark and Katherine Adams in Arkansas state court.  They challenged
the method used by insurer United Services Automobile Association
to calculate the value of their homeowner's insurance claims.

USAA removed the case to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).  The case proceeded before
Judge P.K. Holmes III of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas for 17 months until the parties reported that
they had reached a settlement and sought dismissal from federal
court.  Judge Holmes granted the motion.

Typically, that would have ended Judge Holmes' involvement in the
case.

However, a subsequent article in Arkansas Business made Judge
Holmes take the unusual step of reexamining the case, the federal
judge said in his initial Dec. 21, 2015 order contemplating
sanctions.

As it turns out, the day after Judge Holmes dismissed the case
from his court, the parties refiled the suit in the original state
court with a settlement attached.  The state court approved the
deal, and awarded class counsel $1.85 million in fees despite a 4
percent claims rate from the $3.45 million settlement fund.

The settlement also provided that any unclaimed funds would go
back to USAA.

Many of those details were spelled out in the news article.
Arkansas Business covered the case because one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys involved in the suit, John Goodson, is married to
Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson.  She was running
for chief justice that winter and there were allegations that she
had received a significant amount of money from class action
lawyers in that race.

Rule 11 Sanctions

Judge Holmes took umbrage with the amount of time and energy his
court put into the case only to have the parties dismiss the case
from federal court and win easy settlement approval in state
court.

Judge Holmes formally reprimanded five of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, including John Goodson, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in a
Aug. 3 opinion.  He found they acted in bad faith by engaging in
"improper mid-litigation forum shopping in a manner calculated to
evade federal review and prevent the court from carrying out its
obligation to putative class members" (17 CLASS 799, 8/12/16).

The law of the Eighth Circuit prohibits a party from dismissing
"merely to escape an adverse decision" or "to seek a more
favorable forum," Judge Holmes said.

He was more lenient on the three attorneys who represented USAA.
USAA's directive to settle the suit put them "between the
proverbial rock of asking the court to do something they knew it
could not do -- grant a motion to dismiss so they could pursue
this action in a more favorable forum and avoid an adverse
decision -- and the hard place of violating their ethical duty to
settle as directed by their client," he said.

Judge Holmes said the conduct of the three defense attorneys was
characterized "more by a sense of helplessness in the face of
ethical obligations to their client than it was by bad faith."

He decided that a finding that they violated Rule 11 would be
sufficient to deter them from future misconduct, so no formal
sanction was necessary.

He cleared 10 other attorneys involved in the case, finding they
abused the judicial process but not in bad faith.

Headed to Eighth Circuit

Attorneys for both sides have appealed the Rule 11 findings to the
Eighth Circuit.

On Sept. 6, the appeals court granted leave for Ted Frank,
director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for
Class Action Fairness, to appear as an amicus supporting the
district court's order.

Mr. Frank, in seeking to weigh in on the case, argued that no one
would defend Judge Holmes' order on appeal even though the
sanctions were necessary to curb class action abuses.

He pointed out that class counsel justified their decision to seek
approval of the deal in state court because Arkansas law doesn't
allow class members who object to a settlement to appeal its
approval.

Class counsel had said that class members would actually benefit
from the limitation because Arkansas's requirement that objectors
formally intervene to appeal would limit "serial objectors" and
result in a faster payout to the class.

Back to the Bad Old Days

The propriety of the underlying settlement and the type of forum
shopping the parties engaged in here will no doubt receive further
scrutiny as the appeal works its way through the Eighth Circuit.

But how often does this type of thing happen? And is this kind of
last-minute court shuffling really improper anyway?

Requests for comment to several attorneys involved in the case
were unsuccessful. So their own arguments in defense of their
actions will have to await their appellate briefing.

Those interviewed by Bloomberg BNA said it's unclear how frequent
this practice is because judges usually have no reason to know
what happens to a case after it leaves their courtrooms.

Here, Judge Holmes only found out about the case's afterlife from
a news story that involved local politics.

"It is uncommon for judges to pay attention to a case after it has
been dismissed from their court," Howard Erichson, who specializes
in the ethics of complex litigation at Fordam University School of
Law in New York told Bloomberg BNA in an
e-mail.

Mr. Erichson said he was surprised that the judge found a Rule 11
violation here, but "that does not mean I'm unhappy about it."

"I am pleased to see the court taking seriously the problem of the
breakdown of the adversary system that occurs with settlement
class actions," he said in an e-mail.

He said the situation harkens back to the "bad old days" when
plaintiffs would seek out "magnet jurisdictions" that were lenient
on class deals.  Defendants would do anything they could to avoid
those jurisdictions, "with the big exception that defendants would
seek those jurisdictions along with plaintiffs' lawyers when they
wanted to get a judge to rubber-stamp an inadequate class
settlement," he said.

CAFA was supposed to curb this problem by expanding federal
jurisdiction over class actions.  "But as this case demonstrates,
settling parties may try to work around CAFA by agreeing to file
their settlement class action in state court," he said.

Another complex litigation ethics professor says it's not hard to
justify the conduct of defense counsel here.

"Defense counsel were likely serving the best interests of their
clients," Joshua Davis of the University of San Francisco School
of Law told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.

Some legal ethicists say that defense counsel have an obligation
not to be complicit in conduct that might harm the class, he said.
But he and others find that "hard to square with our adversarial
system."

Why Is 'Forum Shopping' a Dirty Word?

Professor and consumer advocate Brian Wolfman said courts throw
around "forum shopping" as a pejorative when really the problem in
instances like this may be unfair underlying settlement terms.

He declined to comment specifically on the USAA case because he
hasn't followed it closely.

"The lawyer is actually not fulfilling her responsibility to be a
zealous advocate for her client if she's not forum shopping,"
Mr. Wolfman, who runs the Georgetown Law appellate litigation
clinic in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA.

But he wonders why it is always the plaintiffs' attorneys that
come under fire when courts complain of forum shopping.  "It takes
two to tango," he said.  "The defendants are the ones agreeing to
the deal."

Mr. Wolfman said forum shopping isn't the real problem -- the
concern is that this settlement seems like a bad deal.

"If the plaintiffs say to themselves, 'We want to do this because
we suspect that the federal district court will reject this deal
but we actually think this is a great deal for our clients,' sure
they want to go back to state court to get the deal approved," he
said.

Changing forums late in the game should certainly raise red flags
for the court tasked with approving a settlement, he said.

But the law gives plaintiffs options on where to pursue cases. And
robust removal gives an option for the defendant too.

"The law is intended to give options," Mr. Wolfman said.  Forum
shopping isn't the kind of conduct that should be "automatically
sanctionable."


UNITED STATES: Patients Await Disability Benefits Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that state officials
removed San Francisco physician Frank Chen from their disability
screening panel in December 2013 after numerous complaints about
his exams -- that they sometimes lasted 10 minutes or less and
that he ignored a patient's broken bones, bleeding disorder and
use of a cane in his reports following those visits.

Yet, even after his removal, the Social Security Administration
used Chen's patient evaluations to determine that applicants were
ineligible for disability benefits.  Now, in a court settlement,
the federal government has agreed to take another look at 6,500
applicants who were rejected, most of them from the Bay Area.

"Instead of telling people about it, and warning them (that Chen
had been dropped), they let those reports sit in the system, and
adjudicators continued to rely on the reports to deny people
benefits," said Trinh Phan, a lawyer at Justice in Aging, one of
the organizations representing the applicants.  "We did this class
action to hold Social Security accountable."

She said the amounts at stake were potentially significant.  For
example, someone who was wrongly turned down in 2001 for
disability benefits, on average about $1,200 a month, would be
entitled to a retroactive payment of nearly $100,000 in 2017.
The Social Security Administration declined to comment about the
settlement or its treatment of applicants who were examined by
Chen.

Chen no longer practices medicine in the area, and efforts to
locate him were unsuccessful.  A staff member at Bay View Medical
Clinic in San Jose, one of four Bay Area facilities where he
examined applicants for disability benefits, said he had left
several years ago and was no longer in contact with the clinic.
In a letter to state regulators responding to a complaint against
him in 2011, Chen said he had been a licensed physician for more
than 40 years and had practiced internal medicine in the Bay Area
for more than 30 years.

Since at least 2007, the state Department of Social Services had
included him on a regional panel of doctors who perform
"consultative examinations" for applicants seeking disability
benefits under the federal Social Security Disability Insurance
and Supplemental Security Income programs.  The applicants are
mostly moderate- or low-income patients who lack medical
documentation to support their claims of disability.

One applicant was Kevin Hart, the lead plaintiff in the case.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hart was hit by a car in 2007,
shattering his right leg.  Formerly employed as a construction
worker, janitor and groundskeeper, he was unable to work and was
granted disability benefits.

He then suffered further injuries, including a fractured rib and a
lacerated kidney, in an assault by a group of teenagers in
Mr. San Francisco in April 2013.  Needing to renew his benefits,
Hart, who then lived in San Mateo, was referred to Chen for an
exam in August 2013.

According to the lawsuit, Chen spent 10 minutes with him, never
touched his body, cut him off when he tried to describe his past
diagnoses, and apparently never reviewed his records.  Chen's
report to Social Security said Mr. Hart was suffering only from
hypertension and shortness of breath and was capable of sitting or
standing for six hours during an eight-hour workday.  Chen failed
to mention Mr. Hart's leg injuries or the fact that he needed a
cane to walk, the suit said.

A month later, Social Security told Mr. Hart that he was no longer
disabled and reaffirmed the decision in March 2014, three months
after Chen had been removed from the medical review panel. Hart
appealed and eventually won restoration of his benefits of $909 a
month, his sole source of income.

"That was a nightmare," said Mr. Hart, 52, who now lives in Elk
Grove (Sacramento County) and relies on both a walker and a cane
to get around.  "I was telling him about my surgery, my leg, my
back, my kidney disease, and he said, 'Who told you that?' . . .
He did not care."

Another plaintiff, Nina Silva-Collins, 38, applied for disability
in 2013, suffering from a severe menstrual bleeding disorder,
anemia and other ailments that she said made sustained work
impossible.  Referred to Chen at his Oakland clinic in August of
that year, she said he gave her a cursory examination, then
reported that she suffered only from obesity and was capable of
standing and walking for long periods.

The following January, a Social Security hearing officer found Ms.
Silva-Collins ineligible for disability benefits, citing Chen's
report.  The officer failed to note that Chen had been removed as
a consultant, the suit said.

Chen responded indignantly to one complaint by a patient who said
he had spent exactly seven minutes and 46 seconds examining her in
a filthy, foul-smelling clinic in San Francisco in July 2010. She
said he never touched her and refused to look at her medical
records.

The complaint was "totally untrue," Chen said in a January 2011
letter to the state Department of Social Services office
overseeing the medical panel.  He said he always questioned
applicants about their condition and medical history, conducted a
long series of examinations, and reviewed medical records provided
by other doctors and hospitals.

"I do not need unrelevant record files" from a patient, Chen
wrote, adding that it would be "impossible to complete the above
protocol in seven minutes and 46 seconds."

But the state agency said the complaints kept coming in.  In an
October 2013 warning letter, the agency told Chen that patients
were reporting he treated them rudely and saw them for only a few
minutes before issuing evaluations that ignored their obvious
impairments, such as a spinal degeneration and the effects of a
recent stroke.

Finally, in December 2013, the agency told clinics in San
Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Pacific Grove that Chen had been
removed from the panel because of his "unprofessional manner and
failure to adequately correct deficiencies in his (consultative)
reports."

Neither the state nor the federal government notified Chen's
patients of his removal, however, and Social Security continued to
use his evaluations to deny benefits, patients' advocates said in
the lawsuit, filed in February 2015.

The government argued in court filings that Social Security
officials were aware of Chen's shortcomings and were providing
that information to reviewers of disability claims.  But U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss the suit.

The plaintiffs, Judge Tigar said in his ruling, were seeking
action that the government was unwilling to take -- new
assessments of their claims that disregarded Chen's findings.

The settlement, which awaits Judge Tigar's approval, would entitle
the 6,500 rejected applicants to a new evaluation of their
disability claims, which could include another examination or
reconsideration of their past medical information apart from
Chen's reports.  Patients Chen examined between 2007 and the end
of 2010 would be reconsidered only if they said they were still
disabled.


UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Court Snobs Fitzgerald's Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David A. Baker denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class and concurrent request for extension to
certify class in the lawsuit styled CHARLIE FITZGERALD, III v.
UNIVERSAL PICTURES, Case No. 6:16-cv-01193-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla.).

In his order, Judge Baker wrote that the Motion to Certify Class
is premature.  Judge Baker directed the parties to proceed with
preparation of the Case Management Report and class discovery in
the normal course as dictated by the Local and Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tq3Wi83f


VERIZON WIRELESS: Robocall Class Action Suits Filed in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
there can be little doubt that nuisance call lawsuit plaintiff
Denise Menichiello has done everything right. She has never
knowingly given any entity her permission to reach out to her
cellphone with unsolicited calls. In fact, her number has been on
the 'do-not-call' list since the summer of 2003. One can imagine,
therefore, Menichiello's surprise and dismay when she started
receiving auto-dialed calls from Verizon Wireless Services LLC
(Verizon) to her mobile phone without her permission.

The illegal robocalls landed Menichiello in her attorney's office
to discuss an illegal telemarketing lawsuit (Menichiello v.
Verizon Wireless Services LLC et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01635, in
the US District Court for the Central District of California). Her
do not call suit alleges breaches of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Service providers and telemarketers have stepped up their activity
in recent years -- especially with the introduction of mobile
communication devices that provide the technical capacity to reach
out to a 'prospect' at any time regardless of where they are, as
opposed to restricting all robocalls and telemarketing calls to
the supper hour, when it is assumed prospects are home.

However, consumers are understandably protective of their mobile
phones given the cost of data plans which may eat up their minutes
on incoming calls, or the inconvenience and danger of having a
cellphone ring in the midst of what could be a potentially unsafe
situation.

To that end, the TCPA has been explicit on rules involving
telemarketing and cell phones, requiring telemarketer to obtain
"prior express consent" from the owner of the mobile device to
receive autodialed or pre-recorded messages, "absent of an
emergency." Such rules are in place regardless of whether an
individual signs up for the do-not-call registry.

And yet, Verizon "continued to call plaintiff in an attempt to
solicit its services and in violation of the national do-not-call
provisions of the TCPA," Menichiello says, in her do not call list
lawsuit. "Upon information and belief, and based on plaintiff's
experiences of being called by defendant despite plaintiff's
cellular telephone number being on the National Do Not Call
Registry, and at all relevant times, defendant failed to establish
and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively
prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations."

The illegal telemarketing calls lawsuit, filed earlier this month
in California, is proposed as a class action that would represent
two classes of consumers:

The first covers any US resident who may have received a robocall
from Verizon in the last four years without having given prior
consent. The second class of consumers would represent any member
of a do-not-call list having been registered as a list participant
for at least a month, have neither given Verizon permission to
call or have no "prior established business relationship" with
Verizon, and who may have received more than one auto-dialed
telemarketing call over a 12-month period from Verizon within the
last four years.

Menichiello alleges in her illegal telemarketing calls class
action that she received "numerous" calls on her cell phone.

Each individual violation could result in $1,500 in total
compensation. Meanwhile, other Robocall lawsuits keep coming.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settlement Final Court Hearing Set for Oct. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Cook, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that thousands
of dollars and an apology may not be enough for the German
automobile maker Volkswagen to win back Brooke Johnson's trust.

Ms. Johnson, of Little Rock, is one of 2,540 Arkansas buyers of VW
and Audi automobiles in the years 2009-15 who are eligible for a
buyback program after the discovery that Volkswagen AG used
"defeat device" technology to avoid emission compliance on its
four-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi diesel cars.

The deceit was discovered in 2015 by researchers at West Virginia
University who were studying emissions and fuel economy.

"I was disappointed," Ms. Johnson said in an email.  "The thought
of VW lowering their ethical standards to skew emissions tests
seemed unnecessary.  The overall outcome has been devastating for
their brand image."

Volkswagen stopped the sale of its vehicles, but 11 million had
already been sold worldwide, including approximately 482,000 in
the United States.  Ms. Johnson, the owner of a 2014 VW Jetta that
she purchased used from Landers Toyota in Little Rock in 2015,
filed a lawsuit Sept. 22, 2015, in Pulaski County Circuit Court
against Volkswagen Group of America, the U.S. subsidiary of
Volkswagen AG.

Ms. Johnson was joined in the suit, filed by Allison Koile of the
Sanford Law Firm of Russellville, by Dennis Shipley of
Russellville.  That lawsuit, the first filed in Arkansas, was
later moved to federal court, where another Arkansas lawsuit had
subsequently been filed.

Eventually all the lawsuits filed nationally against Volkswagen
were combined in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  In July, a
settlement was announced in which Volkswagen agreed to pay
approximately $14.7 billion to settle the class-action lawsuit.

VW agreed to pay $2.7 billion to support environmental programs,
$2 billion to promote nonpolluting cars and $10 billion to either
buy back the affected vehicles or have the car's emissions system
corrected.

"They admitted liability within a matter of moments," Ms. Koile
said.  "For us to process approximately half a million consumer
claims within less than a year from the time that it came out that
the vehicles were doing what they were doing, it's simply unheard
of in the legal field.  I can't think of a single other time
something like this has settled so quickly."

Ms. Johnson has decided to sell back her car if the settlement is
approved by Judge Charles R. Breyer.  The final court hearing is
scheduled for Oct. 18 in San Francisco.

"I plan to participate in the buyback program that is stated in
the settlement package and purchase an alternate vehicle,"
Ms. Johnson said.  "I believe VW is taking full responsibility for
their unethical decisions.  As a result of those wrongdoings, I
have recently received a settlement offer that I am satisfied
with."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ex-Chief Aware of Emissions Cheating, Data Shows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Scally, writing for The Irish Times, reports that
Volkswagen's ex-chief executive Martin Winterkorn was reportedly
informed about the car firm's efforts to cheat emissions tests --
and a plan to make only a partial disclosure to US authorities --
seven weeks before the scandal broke.

Mr. Winterkorn stepped down shortly after the revelations in
September 2015, claiming to have known nothing about the use of
software to manipulate diesel emissions during official testing,
although documents suggest he knew about VW's illicit efforts as
early as July last year.

A document dated July 30th, 2015, leaked to the Bild am Sonntag
newspaper, suggests Mr Winterkorn agreed days earlier in a meeting
with the company strategy not to admit the full scale of the
wrongdoing.

'Problem issue'

The strategy document states that two VW employees would meet with
a Californian environment official for an unofficial exchange.  In
this discussion the two VW employees were authorized to
"partially" admit the "problem issue" of software engineered to
make VW diesel exhausts appear cleaner than they were.  The
document continues that this strategy "was confirmed with Prof
Winterkorn on Tuesday, the 28.7.2015".

The meeting took place in California on August 5th, after which
one of the two VW employees attending wrote of a "positive
discussion".  The US official had reacted "sympathetically" to the
admission that VW's diesels "did not meet the legal demands" and
that the German company was working on a fix. However the memo
warns to expect "head wind in further discussions with technical
personnel" on the US side.

Weeks later, VW was forced to make a full and humiliating
confession of the full scale of its cheating.  Mr. Winterkorn
resigned and VW's share price tumbled ahead of multibillion
criminal and compensation claims.

According to the leaked document, US investigators offered the
engineers involved in the preliminary talks suspended sentences
and fines of up to EUR150,000 if they made a confession.  The
German engineers denied the offer, apparently fearing they would
lose protection by VW and have to pay their own legal costs.

A spokesman for VW declined to comment.

Legal challenges

As well as the belated diesel admission VW -- and software partner
Bosch -- have urged US authorities not to make 20 million pages of
documents in their investigation available to parties involved in
European legal challenges against the companies. Several motorists
are taking cases with VW Group thorough the Irish courts relating
to the scandal, which involved 11 million cars worldwide,
including an estimated 110,000 in Ireland.

State prosecutors in Braunschweig have opened a separate criminal
investigation into the company and its lead employees for market
manipulation, claiming senior executives withheld relevant
information from investors.

However VW and Bosch told a San Francisco court on Sept. 24 that
the documents lodged as part of the US legal case had no business
being shared with the Braunschweig investigation, as it was a
civil case.

German lawyers representing 100 VW shareholders have argued that
Mr. Winterkorn was an expert on car emissions and was aware of the
problems with VW diesel engines from as early as 2014, when the
first indications came from the US of manipulated VW software.


WAL-MART: Mexican Unit Bribery Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne D'Innocenzio, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal judge has granted class-action status to Wal-Mart
investors suing the world's largest retailer over allegations that
it covered up a bribery scheme in Mexico to help its business
there.

The allegations included that Wal-Mart's Mexican unit paid
millions of dollars in bribes to speed building permits and gain
other favors.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, dismissed Wal-Mart's argument that a Michigan retirement
fund could not lead a class-action suit because it suffered no
related financial losses.  Wal-Mart's stance was based on a
certain accounting method.

But Judge Hickey ruled that the pension fund, the City of Pontiac
General Employees' Retirement System, showed losses using another
accounting method and that Wal-Mart failed to adequately explain
why its accounting method was preferable.

"Judicial economy and the best interests of the class members
favor class certification," Judge Hickey wrote.

Randy Hargrove, a spokesman for Bentonville, Arkansas-based
Wal-Mart, said the company is considering its options, including
an appeal.  "We continue to believe that the claims here are not
appropriate for certifying a class," he said.

Investors said Wal-Mart knew about the bribery scheme as early as
2005, seven years before allegations were made public by The
New York Times.  The newspaper reported that top executives had
covered up the finding of an internal investigation and didn't
alert U.S. or Mexican authorities until after the paper said it
was investigating the issue.

In July, a federal appeals court rejected a shareholder lawsuit
filed against key directors at Wal-Mart that claimed they allowed
and concealed alleged bribery in the company's Mexico division.

Chief Judge William Riley wrote for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that shareholders, including the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System, did "not give rise to a
reasonable reference" that the board of directors learned of the
suspected bribery while it was being covered up and the internal
investigation squashed. That upheld an Arkansas district court's
dismissal.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Accounts Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Blake, writing for ABC News, reports that three Utah
residents have filed what may be the first class-action lawsuit
brought by customers against Wells Fargo in the ongoing fallout
over allegations that more than 2 million bank accounts or credit
cards were opened or applied for without customers' knowledge or
permission.

Wells Fargo declined to comment on the suit which was filed on
Sept. 16 in U.S. District Court in Utah.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status on behalf of up to
a million people who may have been affected and damages.  The suit
accuses Wells Fargo of "knowing theft, engagement in a continuous
pattern of fraud, [and] conspiracy to commit fraud."

Wells Fargo was slapped with a $100 million fine from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), on Sept. 8.  It was also hit
with fines from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for
$35 million and the County and City of Los Angeles for another $50
million.

About 5,300 Wells Fargo employees were fired in connection to the
allegations.

How the Wells Fargo Unauthorized Accounts Crackdown Affects
Customers

The bank said in a statement at the time that it takes
responsibility "for any instances where customers may have
received a product that they did not request."  Bank officials
have also said that they believe all affected customers have been
refunded, and sought to downplay the terminations, saying that
they represented only about one percent of their workforce.  Total
refunds, the bank said earlier this month, amounted to about $2.6
million.

A portion of the banks' unauthorized deposit accounts generated
about $2 million in fees, while a chunk of the credit card
accounts generated about $400,000 in fees, according to a CFPB
document reviewed by ABC News.

Wells Fargo spokeswoman Aimee Worsley told ABC News previously
that the bank believes it has identified and refunded all affected
customers, though it encourages customers who think they may have
been affected to come forward.

Since the announcement of the fines against the bank, the FBI and
federal prosecutors have opened an investigation, a U.S. House of
Representatives committee has said it's launching an investigation
and the Senate has scheduled a hearing for tomorrow.

The bank did not comment on the announcement of a federal
investigation.  Regarding the House investigation, Wells Fargo
said that it welcomed "the opportunity to provide the Committee
with information on this matter and to discuss steps we have taken
to affirm our commitment to customers."  A Wells Fargo official
said CEO John Stumpf would attend the Senate hearing.


WELLS FARGO: Customers May Never See Their Day in Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Martha C. White, writing for NBC News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed against Wells Fargo might be hamstrung at the
starting line, legal experts say.

Customers who had bank or credit card accounts opened in their
name without their knowledge face an uphill battle even getting a
court to hear their case because of mandatory arbitration contract
clauses that protect banks from class-action suits, consumer
advocates say.

"It's going to be a serious obstacle," said David Seligman, an
attorney and contributor to the National Consumer Law Center.
"These clauses are hidden in boilerplate contracts," he said.
"They often require you to bring disputes in to private
arbitration, and almost always force you to bring them
individually."

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which spearheaded the
regulatory action against the banking giant, has proposed rolling
back the broad latitude that banks have granted themselves to
settle disputes outside the legal system this way.

But that won't help these Wells Fargo customers.

"They're going to come up against that arbitration clause," said
Amanda Werner, arbitration campaign manager for the Americans for
Financial Reform and Public Citizen. "We see things like this all
the time," she said.

Five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for
companies to shield themselves from lawsuits by requiring that
customers address grievances through a private arbitration system.
Since then, consumers seeking redress from banks, even earlier
cases against Wells Fargo in California, have been effectively
stopped at the courthouse door.

Part of the problem, Werner said, is that banks -- and Wells Fargo
in particular -- use far-reaching language in their arbitration
clauses.

In other words, even if an account was opened fraudulently, a
legal argument could be made that the arbitration clause on a
customer's existing, legal account would be enough to grant
immunity to the bank.

"There's no question that it's very difficult to overturn an
arbitration clause, although the facts in this case are pretty
damning," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for U.S.
PIRG.

The arbitration issue has been on the agency's radar for some
time. Last year, it submitted a report on arbitration to Congress
that found such clauses are common in contracts for credit cards
and checking accounts, covering roughly half of credit cards and
nearly half of bank deposit accounts. The lion's share of those
clauses were put in place by the biggest financial institutions,
the CFPB noted.

In May, it submitted a proposed rule that would put the kibosh on
mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit class-action suits in
financial-services contracts. The rule got nearly 52,000 responses
during its public comment period, with consumer advocates and
regular Americans supporting the rule, and business and banking
interests weighing in with opposition.

At a Congressional hearing on September 27, CFPB director Richard
Cordray was asked if the rule would have helped out customers, had
it been in place already. "It will be very difficult to get any
relief other than through a class action," he acknowledged. "And
yet I believe an arbitration clause here would -- might -- might
defeat a class action."

As Wells Fargo CEO Faces Senate Panel, Elizabeth Warren Calls for
Criminal Charges

Consumer watchdogs say they hope the harsh spotlight being shone
on the Wells Fargo case will spur the CFPB to action, or that the
bank will voluntarily step out from behind the legal shield
afforded by its arbitration policies. (Wells Fargo had no
comment.)

Those advocates say it's not enough for Wells Fargo just to refund
fees that were assessed on accounts opened without customer
approval. Some of those people subsequently may have had to pay
higher interest rates on mortgages or credit cards because the
unauthorized accounts damaged their credit, a point Senators
pressed Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf about in the hearing on
September 27.

Without being able to pursue their case in a courtroom, "There's a
lot of people who won't be made whole," Seligman said.

"This has been a longstanding challenge for consumers who want to
recoup their losses," said Suzanne Martindale, a staff attorney at
Consumers Union. "This is precisely why consumers deserve their
right to a day in court."


WELLS FARGO: Former Employees File Class Action Over Sale Quotas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that two former Wells Fargo employees have filed a
class action in California seeking $2.6 billion or more for
workers who tried to meet aggressive sales quotas without engaging
in fraud and were later demoted, forced to resign or fired.

The lawsuit on behalf of people who worked for Wells Fargo in
California over the past 10 years, including current employees,
focuses on those who followed the rules and were penalized for not
meeting sales quotas.

"Wells Fargo fired or demoted employees who failed to meet
unrealistic quotas while at the same time providing promotions to
employees who met these quotas by opening fraudulent accounts,"
the lawsuit filed on Sept. 22 in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles County said.

Wells Fargo has fired some 5,300 employees for opening as many as
2 million accounts in customers' names without their
authorization.  On Sept. 8, a federal regulator and Los Angeles
prosecutor announced a $190 million settlement with Wells.

The revelations are a severe hit to Wells Fargo's reputation.
During the financial crisis, the bank trumpeted being a
conservative bank in contrast with its rivals.

A Wells Fargo spokesman on Sept. 24 declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit accuses Wells Fargo of wrongful termination, unlawful
business practices and failure to pay wages, overtime, and
penalties under California law.

Former employees Alexander Polonsky and Brian Zaghi allege Wells
Fargo managers pressed workers to meet quotas of 10 accounts per
day, required progress reports several times daily and reprimanded
workers who fell short.

Messrs. Polonsky and Zaghi filed applications matching customer
requests and were counseled, demoted and later terminated, the
lawsuit said.

While executives at the top benefited from the activity, the blame
landed on thousands of $12-per-hour employees who tried to meet
the quotas and were often required to work off the clock to do so,
the lawsuit said.

Employees with a conscience who tried to meet quotas without
engaging in fraud were the biggest victims, losing wages, benefits
and suffering anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment, the lawsuit
said.

Wells Fargo was aware many accounts were illegally opened,
unwanted, carried a zero balance, or were simply a result of
unethical business practices, the lawsuit said.

"Wells Fargo knew that their unreasonable quotas were driving
these unethical behaviors that were used to fraudulently increase
their stock price and benefit the CEO at the expense of the low
level employees," the lawsuit said.


WHIRPOOL CORP: Oct. 11 Deadline for Filing Settlement Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Segall, writing for WTHR, reports that when Karen Freeman
purchased a new Kenmore Elite washer and dryer 11 years ago, she
was elated to have new appliances -- especially a front-loading
washing machine.

"They were the latest, greatest newest thing," she recalls. "You
use less water. You use less soap. You use less everything. They
were going to save us all kinds of money."

Within just a few months, however, Freeman discovered her $3,000
washer and dryer came with an unexpected feature.

"It just smelled terrible. It's probably the worst, almost like a
sewer gas smell," she said. And the odor didn't impact only the
washing machine. It also impacted Freeman's clothes.

"The minute you take them out, you can smell that foul, sour smell
to them, so them you have to wash them all over again," Freeman
explained. "I thought it was just me. But then I found out it was
the dirty little secret that women don't want to talk about. It's
an epidemic."

Freeman and other frustrated owners of front-loading washers filed
class-action lawsuits. A decade later, those lawsuits have been
settled, resulting in a potential cash payout or rebate for more
than 6 million Americans. But with the claim deadline just a few
weeks away, few people have filed a claim because most washing
machine owners don't know they are entitled to benefits under the
massive settlement.

                      "Isn't that disgusting?"

Black mold.

Mildew.

Slime.

That horrible smell reminiscent of a rotten egg that fell into a
backed up sewer.

13 Investigates got to see and smell all of it while producing
this report on front-loading washing machines.

Jen Martin says it means a constant battle in her laundry room.

"It smells disgusting, like the load [of laundry] has been sitting
there for a week or a month, even though it's just been 15
minutes," she said.

Martin, a mom to three young boys, washes two or three loads of
clothes every day in a Kenmore high efficiency front-loading
washing machine. She inherited the washer when she bought her home
in Westfield. Because of the constant mold and odor issues, Martin
routinely wipes out her washing machine and purchases products to
help reduce the smell.

"It's just a process that's never ending, but you do what you need
to do when you've got three boys," Martin said.

Freeman does the same thing, trying to find strategies to help her
deal with a moldy washer.

Before running each load of laundry, she runs the "drain and spin"
cycle for 12 minutes to flush out any stagnant water that has
collected in the washer. She has a cabinet full of liquids,
powders and other products that claim they will prevent mold from
growing in her washer. And she wipes out her front-loading washing
machine after every load, then props the door open to promote air
circulation inside.

"I've spent more money on products to clean this washing machine
than I've ever spent on laundry detergent," Freeman said. "And I
spend more time washing my washing machine than washing the
clothes."

While her washer looks clean, a closer inspection shows mold is
still growing inside. Freeman took out the soap dispenser to
reveal large patches of black mold growing above the tray.

"Isn't that appalling? Isn't that disgusting?" she asked. "I'm
always surprised how quickly the mold grows back. You will never
stay ahead of this. It's just impossible. It's not an isolated
incident."

                         Not an easy fix

Appliance repairmen tell WTHR they see the problem frequently.

"We see this all the time. This is a very common issue," said Zach
Crowe, co-owner of Vogel Appliance. "If you have a mold issue,
I've seen a lot of people where it actually ruins their laundry
because their clothes smell so bad, and there's really nothing
they can do to fix it. If you put your clothes into a stinky
washer, you're clothes are going to become stinky."

13 Investigates watched Crowe work on a washing machine that had
mold growing inside its gasket. The large piece of circular rubber
-- sometimes also referred to as the bellow, seal or boot -- is
found near the opening of a front-loading washer. It is often a
breeding ground for mold because water can easily get trapped
inside.

"I'd definitely recommend replacing this bellow because the drain
holes are clogged up and it's covered in mold," Crowe said. "If we
replace this, it's around $200 for the repair."

Repairs might get rid of some mold, but they don't always get rid
of the smell. That's because stagnant water can get trapped deep
inside the washing machine, where you can't see it. So many of the
products that claim they'll keep your washer clean and get rid of
odors only mask the problem rather than eliminating it.

When faced with thousands of complaints about smelly washers,
Whirlpool's solution was not to repair the washing machines.
Instead, it began marketing Affresh, a product that "gets under
residue, breaks it up, and washes it away leaving the washer
smelling fresh and clean." Critics complain the company has made
tens of millions of dollars by selling a product that addresses
design flaws in its front-loading washers.

Unable to find any product that eliminates the mold and odor
problem in her washing machine, Freeman decided to fight back.

                          Ten year battle

Freeman's class action lawsuit claims Whirlpool and Sears made and
sold millions of front-load washers that are defective. The
lawsuit alleges Whirlpool, Kenmore and Maytag washing machines
manufactured between 2001 and 2010 did not adequately clean
themselves of laundry residue, causing them to accumulate mold
that resulted in a bad odors and smelly laundry.

The lawsuit produced more than 1 milllion pages of documents and
evidence, including a nearly 7-hour deposition in which Freeman
says she was "grilled" by Whirlpool attorneys. During the lawsuit,
a group of lawyers and biochemists also visited her Illinois home
and took apart her washing machine.

"They found lots of mold, and they also found parasites living
inside the washer," Freeman told WTHR. "When they were done, they
cleaned and sanitized it, and put it all back together. For a
while, it was fine, but the smell came back four months later."

According to a 2013 report on NBC's Today Show, Whirlpool was
aware of the problem a long time ago:

"A 2004 internal memo shows the company identified the problem and
was trying to fix it, the company's lead engineer saying that
while mold can exist in any washer, their front-load machines are
the 'ideal environment for molds . . . we are fooling ourselves if
we think we can eliminate mold . . .' But the lawsuit says
Whirlpool kept selling the machines anyway."

Despite the alleged memo, Whirlpool and Sears have consistently
disputed plaintiffs' allegations during a full decade of
litigation, insisting their front-loading washers are not
defective in design. But earlier this year, the defendants decided
to settle the case to avoid "the substantial costs and disruptions
of continued litigation" and the risk of the class-action case
going to trial.

A federal judge was expected to give final approval for the
settlement later last week.

           Options for Whirlpool, Kenmore or Maytag owners

The lengthy settlement provides three options for consumers who
purchased a 2001-2010 Whirlpool, Kenmore or Maytag front-loading
washer:

1. $50 cash payment

2. A cash rebate of either 20% or 5% off the retail purchase price
   of a new washing machine or dryer

3. Reimbursement of up to $500 for out-of-pocket repair expenses
   or replacement of affected washers due to a mold or odor
   problem

To receive the $50 payment or a 20% cash rebate, washing machine
owners must submit a claim form electing the benefit option they
want, provide their washer model and serial number (or alternate
proof of purchase or ownership of a class washer), provide their
names and contact information, check several eligibility boxes,
and sign a statement under oath attesting that they experienced a
mold or odor problem with their front-loading washer within five
years of purchase.

The cash reimbursement of up to $500 requires far more proof. In
addition to the proof-of-ownership requirements listed, washing
machine owners must also provide copies of service tickets,
receipts, cancelled checks, or other documented proof of out-of-
pocket costs to repair their washer due to a mold or odor problem.
To claim the reimbursement for purchasing a replacement washing
machine, you would have to submit a receipt for the new appliance
in addition to documentation showing at least three complaints,
service call requests or attempts to remedy the problem were made
prior to purchasing a new washer. Such documentation could include
service tickets, complaints to Whirlpool or Sears, receipts for
purchase of washing machine cleaner, or other documentation
showing repeated mold or odor problems. The first documented
service call, complaint, or manifestation of mold or odor must
have occurred within the first five years after purchase, and no
replacement expenses will be reimbursed if they were incurred
after December 31, 2015.

Washing machine owners who did not experience mold or odor
problems are eligible for a 5% rebate.

Please note, all claims for this settlement must be filed no later
than October 11.

                        Options for LG owners

If you own a front-loading washer made by LG, there is a separate
class-action settlement for you, too. It applies only to those who
purchased an LG front-loading washing machine manufactured between
2002 and 2006. The settlement options include either:

1. A cash payment of $35
2. A $105 washer rebate certificate that applies if you buy an LG
   front-loading washer within a year after the settlement
   receives final approval

To get the LG settlement, consumers must submit one of the
following along with their claim form:

* A photograph of the washer's serial number if you still own the
   washing machine

* A document showing proof of purchase of the washer such as: a
   credit card receipt, cancelled check, warranty card,
   invoice/receipt from an authorized LG USA dealer, proof of
   purchase of an extended warranty, etc.

All LG front-loading washers made between 2002 and 2006 are
eligible for the settlement. Like Sears and Whirlpool, LG denies
any wrongdoing.

Please note, all claims for the LG settlement must be filed or
post-marked no later than October 10.

                  Time running out to file a claim

Karen Freeman scrubs mold out of her front-load washer.
Freeman says her 10-year battle has a happy ending. Following her
lawsuit, millions of people now qualify for a rebate or cash
settlement. Freeman will use her settlement proceeds to buy a new
washing machine. It won't be a front-loader.

"I'm going back to the old-fashioned top-loader. No more $3,0000
washer and dryer for this house. That much I can tell you,"
Freeman told WTHR. "The experts all tell me 'More is not better.
Buy the simplest machine that has the least bells and whistles.'"


She hopes others will take advantage of the washing machine
settlements to pay themselves back for the time, hassle and cost
expended on moldy washing machines.

Approximately 6.3 million people qualify for one of the
settlements but, so far, less than 5% of those people have filed a
claim form. The October deadlines are just a few weeks away.

          Advice for dealing with a front-loading washer


In recent years, manufacturers have made design changes to some of
their washers to help prevent mold and odors.

Some new washers have a magnet that props the door open to allow
fresh air to circulate inside. Others have a special clean cycle
designed to remove residues and odors. And some new models have
redesigned their door gaskets to allow water to drain more easily.

Despite the design changes, appliance repair experts say consumers
cannot let their guard down when dealing with a front-loading
washer.

"You really have to do regular maintenance yourself to prevent
problems," Crowe said.

He suggests always leaving the washer door open when it is not in
use. (If you have toddlers or young children who might be inclined
to crawl into a washing machine, do not leave them unattended near
an open front-loading washer.)

Not using too much soap and fabric softener is also important,
according to Crowe, because excess soap builds up inside the tub
and fosters the growth of mold. And make sure to use soap and
softeners that are specifically designed for high efficiency
front-loading washing machines.

Other suggestions for preventing or limiting mold growth and bad
odors in your front-loading washer:

  * Remove your wet clothes as quickly as possible after each
    load is complete.

  * Wipe down the inside of the washer tub with a towel until it
    is dry.

  * Occasionally run a hot water wash -- with no clothes -- to
    clean the washing machine tub. Adding one cup of bleach to the
    hot water wash can help kill bacteria and remove mildew and
    odors.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Sept. 19
disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an
institutional investor on behalf of holders of The WhiteWave Foods
Company ("WhiteWave") (WWAV) common stock on August 25, 2016, in
connection with the acquisition of WhiteWave by Danone S.A. and
certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, "Danone").  This action
was filed in the District of Colorado and is captioned City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System v. The
WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., No. 16-cv-2355.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 19, 2016.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges WhiteWave, its Board of Directors and Danone
with breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty and/or violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("1934 Act") arising out of defendants' efforts to complete
the sale of WhiteWave to Danone pursuant to an unfair process and
for an unfair price (the "Proposed Acquisition").  WhiteWave
manufactures, markets and sells branded plant-based foods and
beverages, coffee creamers and beverages, premium dairy products
and organic produce.

On July 7, 2016, WhiteWave and Danone announced they had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which WhiteWave stockholders will receive $56.25 in
cash for each share of WhiteWave stock they hold.  The Merger
Agreement provides that a Danone subsidiary will merge with and
into WhiteWave, with WhiteWave continuing as the surviving
corporation and becoming a direct or indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Danone.  On August 15, 2016, WhiteWave announced
that the stockholder vote on the Proposed Acquisition will be held
on October 4, 2016.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Acquisition, on July 29, 2016, defendants
issued a materially false and misleading Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy").  The Proxy, which
recommends that WhiteWave shareholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material
information about the unfair sales process for the Company,
conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair
consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition and the actual
intrinsic value of the Company on a standalone basis and as a
merger partner for Danone, in contravention of Secs. 14(a) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants' fiduciary duty of
disclosure under state law.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is material to the impending decision of WhiteWave
shareholders on whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of holders of
WhiteWave common stock on August 25, 2016.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
U.S. and international institutional investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring.  It has 200 lawyers in 10
offices.


YAHOO INC: Faces Class Action Over Massive 2014 Hacking
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Yahoo Inc. was
sued on Sept. 23 by a user who accused it of gross negligence over
a massive 2014 hacking in which information was stolen from at
least 500 million accounts.

The lawsuit was filed in the federal court in San Jose,
California, one day after Yahoo disclosed the hacking,
unprecedented in size, by what it believed was a "state-sponsored
actor."

Ronald Schwartz, a New York resident, sued on behalf of all Yahoo
users in the United States whose personal information was
compromised.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status and
unspecified damages.

A Yahoo spokeswoman said the Sunnyvale, California-based company
does not discuss pending litigation.

The attack could complicate Chief Executive Marissa Mayer's effort
to shore up the website's flagging fortunes, two months after she
agreed to a $4.8 billion sale of Yahoo's Internet business to
Verizon Communications Inc.

Yahoo on Sept. 22 said user information including names, email
addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and encrypted passwords had
been compromised in late 2014.

But the lawsuit suggested that the breach might have been warded
off had Yahoo, having been targeted by hackers before, lived up to
its promise of taking user privacy "seriously" and bulked up its
security measures.

It also faulted Yahoo for taking roughly three times longer than
organizations typically need to uncover the breach.

Yahoo demonstrated "reckless disregard for the security of its
users' personal information that it promised to protect,"
according to the complaint.

Mr. Schwartz is represented by two large U.S. class-action
specialists, the law firms Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and
Labaton Sucharow.

The case is Schwartz v Yahoo Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, No. 16-05456.


* 75% of Bank Account Agreements Include Arbitration Clauses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Nance-Nash, writing for DepositAccounts, reports that while
America is no doubt a most litigious society, guess who it's
getting harder to sue? Your bank.  According to The Pew Charitable
Trust, many account agreements restrict the legal recourse
available to consumers who have disputes with their banks.

You may not have even been aware of the clauses in contracts that
can be hard to find in all the fine print.  But often, whether
you're signing on for a credit card, payday loan, or student loan,
you give up your right to participate in a group lawsuit if a
company breaks the law, or otherwise harms you.

In Pew's latest research of the dispute resolution policies and
practices disclosed by the 50 largest retail banks in the U.S.,
which represent two-thirds of deposits nationwide, they found that
nearly 75% of the banks' account agreements include clauses that
mandate pre-dispute arbitration -- a private process involving a
third-party decision-maker whose decision is largely binding,
giving the consumer limited opportunity to appeal.  Worse still,
it prohibits consumers from seeking remedy in court. Nearly 75% of
the banks studied prohibit class-action lawsuits, which allow
consumers to band together to challenge the big guns in a case
that might not make sense financially or otherwise to bring on
their own.  Ninety-one percent of the banks also bar consumers
from having their disputes heard by a jury rather than a judge.
According to Pew, more than 90% of these banks include at least
one provision restricting consumer's dispute resolution options.

Consumers are none too happy.  A Pew survey last year found that
generally most consumers don't feel that banks should be allowed
to deny them access to the legal system, particularly to have the
ability pursue a class-action lawsuit.  There is strength in
numbers.  How else can people put banks too big to fail in check?

Almost 90% of consumers polled by Pew said they want to be able to
participate in a group lawsuit.  But getting what they want may be
more than a notion.  However, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act authorizes the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to limit or ban provisions in account agreements
that restrict access to class-action litigation, and the bureau
proposed rules in May that would bar financial institutions from
denying customers this access.

Pew urges the CFPB to get on with finalizing rules that give
consumers the ability to choose how they pursue a dispute, as
opposed to allowing financial institutions to shut them down by
limiting their options.

Pew concludes, "Consumers should be able to pursue legal action
against their banks. Class actions, in particular, are a cost-
effective dispute resolution option for groups of consumers with
small claims.  Pew urges the CFPB to move forward expeditiously
with these new regulations."

In the meantime, says Sean Coffey, media and program evaluation
manager with the California Reinvestment Coalition, "We're eagerly
waiting to see what happens with the CFPB's proposal to end forced
arbitration.  For now, if direct outreach to your bank doesn't
work, airing your concerns via your bank's social media channels
can also be another way to grab their attention.  You can also
submit a complaint to the CFPB."


* Collective Cost of Late Fees Totals $286MM, Research Shows
------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Han, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
one-third of Australians admitted to paying a bill late, with the
top reasons being "forgot when it was due", "didn't have enough
money", and "misplaced/deleted the bill".

The Commonwealth Bank's survey of more than 1000 people found the
average fee for a late payment of a bill was $24, leading it to
conclude Australians were unnecessarily forking out $286 million a
year.

Generation X customers, those born between the mid-1960s and the
early 1980s, accounted for nearly half of all late fees paid.
Gen Y paid $88.5 million, and Baby Boomers $46.4 million.

A quick scan of the websites of major telcos and energy providers
showed late payment fees of up to $15.

EnergyAustralia and Origin charge $12 for the late payment of a
bill.  Telstra and Optus whack their customers with a $15 penalty.

Telstra was once the target of a multi-million dollar class
action, accused of fleecing customers with its late payment fees.
At the time, it was claimed Telstra alone had collected $272
million in "late fees and other miscellaneous fees" in the 2014
financial year.

The Commonwealth Bank is using the startling survey findings to
launch its new "Better Bill Experience" feature on its Commbank
app and Netbank platforms, which may help customers avoid paying
late fees.

The new feature allows customers to have their bills sent directly
to the CommBank app and NetBank, rather than via the post or
email, view new bills in a calendar, providing a snapshot of where
upcoming bills are scheduled and when they are due, and choose to
automatically pay bills.

For the first time, customers with an Apple iPhone 5 or newer
model can take a photo of the bill using the app.  The app will
prepopulate the BPAY, amount and due date fields, making bill
paying quicker and easier.

"Photo-a-bill in the CommBank app not only ensures fewer mistakes,
but it gives our customers a much easier way to pay their bills,"
said Danielle Murrie, the bank's general manager of deposits and
transactions.

"It also speeds up the process, as we know Australians are
spending on average 15 hours a year managing their bills."

The survey also found 61 per cent, or 10 million Australians,
considered themselves "very organized" when it came to paying
bills, 31 per cent said they had missed or forgotten a bill in the
past, and 2 per cent admitted they often forgot to pay bills on
time.

About one-third said they mostly received their bills online, half
said they used a mix of paper and email, while 9 per cent said
they solely relied on paper bills.

Ian Johnson, a self-employed builder from Haberfield, estimated
that over the course of a year he could be paying up to $200 in
various late payment fees.

"It can be high pressure, business wise, to keep up with what's
happening, especially when you don't have someone just doing the
admin.  If you're a one-man band, it can be hard to always check,
know what's in the account, invoices, what bills need to paid," he
said.

"The fees can build up very quickly.  I used to go overseas on a
semi-regular basis and missed the mail, so I paid late fees," he
said.

"It's happening less now, I've really clamped down on it, by
setting up automatic payments and doing as much as possible
online."


* Defense Attorney Says Companies Must Improve Customer Outreach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that as the
number of class action filings seem to grow by the day,
particularly over product liability and marketing issues, one
class action defense attorney argues companies would be wise to
improve their customer outreach.

Michael Mallow, Esq. -- mmallow@sidley.com -- an attorney with
Sidley Austin LLP and co-leader of the firm's Consumer Class
Action Defense practice, should know.

Mr. Mallow defended Campbell-Ewald Company in a putative class
action alleging that a text message recruiting campaign that the
company undertook for its client, the U.S. Navy, violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

Plaintiff Jose Gomez appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which reversed the decision.  The case was then
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court with other counsel, and the
justices confirmed the reversal in a precedent-setting decision in
January.

Mr. Mallow contends companies first need to recognize there is a
problem with their goods or services and then try to take care of
it on their own, that way there is no need for or ability to bring
a class action lawsuit.

"Instead of having to settle a case as a class action, companies
have the ability and incentive to take care of it, in an effort to
avoid the expense or threat of class action activity," he
explained in an interview with Legal Newsline.

It's what he calls "self-initiated unilateral market action."

Basically, a company reaches out to its customer base when there
is a problem with a product or service before plaintiffs'
attorneys can file a lawsuit.

Mr. Mallow made a presentation at an American Bar Association
conference earlier this year, extolling the benefits of better
customer outreach.

"If a company recognizes that its product is causing a problem or
the advertising or marketing of it is confusing to consumers, it's
better for them to say, let's go take care of it," he said. "That
can possibly thwart the filing of litigation.  And if it doesn't
prevent it, it certainly will help in their defense."

Of course, there are those plaintiffs who still file class actions
even if companies voluntarily reimburse customers,
Mr. Mallow said.

"They may say the claims aren't moot because of some type of
damage you're not addressing," he explained.  "But it can be a
hard argument to address."

Especially if the company offers a full refund or is willing to
fix the product for free or provide a longer warranty at no
charge, Mr. Mallow said.

"But all of those don't address the 'if we had known, we wouldn't
have bought it in the first place' argument," he pointed out.

Still, self-initiated market actions work.  Mr. Mallow pointed to
Maidenform, the women's underwear company.

Maidenform and Wacoal were both sued in class actions as
co-defendants over caffeine-infused undergarments.  The
undergarments supposedly slimmed hips and thighs and reduced the
appearance of cellulite, but there was no scientific evidence to
back up the claims.

In 2013, Maidenform was sold to Hanes.  After buying the brand,
Hanes decided it wasn't comfortable with the product and told
retailers to pull it, and stopped selling it on their website.

"They let people know that if they had the garment and are
unhappy, send it back and you'll get your money back," Mr. Mallow
explained.

As a result, Maidenform was voluntarily dismissed from the class
actions after filing a motion to dismiss based on the market
action and a relatively nominal settlement with the plaintiffs.

Wacoal, on the other hand, did not reach out to customers and got
hit by the Federal Trade Commission.

"The market action can be before or after," Mr. Mallow said.  "The
concept is, without a settlement in place, the company is
addressing an issue that impacts a broad number of its customers,
not just a specific person."

And even if litigation is pending, companies should consider it,
he contends.

"If a company does it on its own, it controls the message," he
explained.  "When there's a class action settlement, a notice goes
out that says it's been sued and alleges the following.  In the
minds of the public, if a company is accused in a class action, it
must be guilty."

Mr. Mallow said it's about controlling the message.

"You don't have to ask the plaintiffs or court what they think,"
he said.

In Gomez, the plaintiff alleged Campbell-Ewald violated the TCPA
by sending -- through a third-party vendor -- unsolicited text
messages on behalf of the Navy.

The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing,
and the use of automated telephone equipment.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.

Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez full relief on his claims -- $1,503
per violation, plus reasonable costs -- but the offer was
rejected.

The Ninth Circuit held that the unaccepted offer did not moot the
named plaintiffs' individual claims or the putative class claims.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Ninth Circuit's 2014 decision
was correct.

Mr. Mallow, who represented Campbell-Ewald in federal district
court and was still counsel of record when the case was before the
Ninth Circuit, said he has "a lot of opinions" on the Supreme
Court's decision.

The nation's high court, while it may have answered the question
of whether a class action can be rendered moot, failed to address
variations on that theme, he argues.

"For example, instead of making a settlement offer, you have
someone who has bought a product and they're not happy with that
product in some way, so the company offers to do something about
it," Mr. Mallow explained.  "Well, I don't know how Gomez will
apply to that type of situation."

Mr. Mallow said the decision "clearly" doesn't apply to a self-
initiated unilateral market action.

"I think the court really missed an opportunity to address a very
specific type of litigation involving statutory damages," he said.

And as a result, federal courts are being flooded with TCPA class
actions, in particular, he noted.

"I don't know that Gomez causes all of those filings," Mr. Mallow
said.  "But it certainly took away a tool for addressing many of
them in a very quick and efficient manner."

Now, companies will have to get more creative in how they handle
similar cases, he said.

"I think companies are going to continue to press and figure out
ways around (the decision), while plaintiffs' counsel will try to
use Gomez to their benefit," Mr. Mallow said.

"This is far from over."


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intervenors OK'd to Appear in "Steinebach"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The unopposed motion to intervene by Great American Insurance
Company, Chubb & Son, RiverStone Claims Management, and American
International Group, on behalf of their suspended insured,
Defendant Plant Products & Supply Company, in the case captioned
WILLIAM STEINEBACH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04687-THE (N.D. Calif.), according to a
September 19, 2016, order by Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

According to Judge Henderson, intervenors may appear in this
action under the name of their insured.  They shall file their
complaint in intervention no later than September 23, 2016, and
this will be considered a timely response to Plaintiffs'
complaint, the judge said.

A full-text copy of Judge Henderson's Order is available at
https://is.gd/QHI4J5 from Leagle.com.

William Steinebach, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

William Steinebach, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell
LLP.

Glenda Steinebach, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Erika Aspericueta & Lisa Marie Petrovsky, Steptoe and Johnson LLP.

Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Burnam Ebrahimi, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North
LLP, Patrick J. Glinka, Pond North LLP & Sandra Lucia Gryder, Pond
North LLP.

Plant Products & Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Carol
L. Healey, Esq. -- chealey@bishop-barry.com -- Bishop Barry Howe
Haney & Ryder.

Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Michael
Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by
George D. Yaron, Yaron & Associates & Demian David Steele, Yaron &
Associates.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erica
Lynn Morris, Yaron & Associates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Review Order Denying Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LESTER D. SHIRAH, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15 CV 1636 CDP
(E.D. Mo.), Plaintiff Lester D. Shirah alleges he was injured
after being exposed to asbestos while serving as a boiler tender
in the U.S. Navy in the 1960s.

Although he claims his exposure occurred outside the state of
Missouri, he filed this lawsuit in Missouri state court. It was
then removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, by defendant Crane Co.
After removal, defendant CBS Corporation filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's claims against it based on lack of personal
jurisdiction.

After a hearing on the record, U.S. District Judge Catherine D.
Perry concluded that although CBS is a foreign corporation, it
consented to personal jurisdiction in Missouri by appointing an
agent for service in the state, and denied CBS's motion to
dismiss.

In the motion now before the court, CBS asks for reconsideration
of the denial of its motion to dismiss.  Alternatively, CBS asks
that the court certify the issue of personal jurisdiction by
consent for appeal to the Eighth Circuit in accordance with 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  Also before the court is a joint motion
for voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff and defendant Crown
Cork & Seal Company.

In a memorandum and order dated September 19, 2016, a full-text
copy of which is available at https://is.gd/AWvh1m from
Leagle.com, Judge Perry concluded that because CBS's motion for
reconsideration makes no new legal or factual arguments that
convince me that my prior decision was in error, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied.

Judge Perry also denied CBS's motion to certify the issue for
interlocutory appeal, noting that it has "long been the policy of
the courts to discourage piece-meal appeals." Judge Perry pointed
out that a district court should grant certification only where:
(1) the order involves a controlling question of law; (2) there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3)
certification will materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation.

Here, certification will not materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation, the judge said, pointing out that
there are currently approximately 20 defendants in this matter,
each of whom may or may not be liable for the plaintiff's asbestos
exposure.  If CBS were ultimately dismissed due only to lack of
personal jurisdiction, it would not change the course of the case
except to potentially delay resolution, the judge said.  While a
dismissal of CBS would obviously advance the case as to that
defendant, an interlocutory appeal would only prolong the ultimate
resolution of the action, the judge held.

Judge Perry granted the joint motion for voluntary dismissal and
the case is dismissed with prejudice as to Crown Cork & Seal
Company only.

Lester D. Shirah, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Rafferty Burton,
FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Lester D. Shirah, Plaintiff, represented by Laci M. Whitley, FLINT
AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Luke Perry Pfeifer, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC
& Timothy Paul Hulla, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@smbtrials.com -- SWANSON AND
MARTIN, LLP & Paul W. Lore.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin,
FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin
John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Alison
R. Helgeson, Esq. -- ahelgeson@smbtrials.com -- SWANSON AND BELL &
Marcie J. Vantine, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Agota
Peterfy, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Grinnell, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Julia
Yasmin Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew R. Fields, Esq. -- Fields@archcitylawyers.com -- JACOBSON
AND PRESS, P.C..

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C. & Agota Peterfy, Esq. -- apeterfy@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND
JAMES, P.C..

The J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Paul B. Lee, Esq. -- plee@nlpc-law.com -- NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo
W. Nelsen, Jr., Esq. -- lnelsen@nlpc-law.com -- NELSEN & LEE,
P.C..

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie
Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP & Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Western Auto Supply Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Marcie J. Vantine, SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Man Drops Asbestos Claims vs. 2 Companies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JERRY FLOYD, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05382-JST
(N.D. Calif.), Plaintiff Jerry Floyd has filed two stipulations of
dismissal dated September 15, 2016.

In a minute order dated September 16, 2016, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/0sskPt from Leagle.com, Judge
Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California ordered that all claims between Jerry Floyd
and Metalclad Insulation LLC and Certainteed Corporation have been
dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate
Metalclad Insulation LLC and Certainteed Corporation as parties in
this case.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Michael Fishback,
Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

Jerry Floyd, Plaintiff, represented by Cassiana Aaronson, Keller
Fishback & Jackson LLP, Daniel Lee Keller, Keller Fishback &
Jackson LLP & John Bruce Jackson, Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis Michael Young, Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP, Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP, Holly Elizabeth Acevedo, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P. & Keith
Michael Ameele, Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P..

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Scott Shaffer, Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie
LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP &
Frederick W. Gatt, Esq. -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader &
Berkon LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Duffy, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Amy Jo Talarico, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Michael Quinn Eagan, Jr., Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Taylor
Carl Day, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynn
Lanphear, Schiff Hardin LLP & Renee Christine Kelley, Schiff
Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Policies Exhausted as of July 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the Complex Commercial Litigation Division 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.), Plaintiff CNH Industrial America LLC filed a
declaratory relief and breach of contract case against several
insurance companies, including Travelers Indemnity Company.  CNH's
complaint alleges Travelers breached its duty to defend CNH in
underlying asbestos-related lawsuits filed against CNH.

The parties filed numerous summary judgment motions related to
Travelers's duties. On October 7, 2014, CNH filed Plaintiff CNH
Industrial America LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Against Travelers Regarding Exhaustion.

On May 18, 2015, the Court held oral argument on CNH's motions,
and made several bench rulings. On June 8, 2015, the Court issued
two orders memorializing its bench rulings. First, the Court held
that Wisconsin law applied to the policies.  Second, the Court
held that CNH was the policies' proper assignee under 1994
reorganization agreements.

On July 6, 2015, prior to the Court's written decisions on the
remaining issues, 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 as indemnity
for CNH's prior settlements.  Travelers calculated its indemnity
payments by taking six underlying 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.
Travelers contends that the payment fully exhausted the policies'
remaining limits.

On July 9, 2015, CNH replied.  CNH disagreed with Travelers'
position, arguing the payments did not impact or influence the
pending motions.

On August 21, 2015, the Court issued a series of opinions.  The
Court partially granted CNH's motion for summary judgment on
exhaustion, holding all but three policies were fully exhausted.
After a series of briefs filed since December 2015, the Court
heard oral argument on March 15, 2016.

In resolving the issue, the Superior Court of Delaware took a
straight forward approach and apply the language of the policies.
Under Wisconsin law, an insurer's obligations are fully discharged
after it pays the maximum amount under the policy, the court held.

The court noted that the language of these policies clearly
provides that Travelers shall not be obligated to pay any
additional claim or judgment or to defend any suit after Travelers
exhausts the applicable limit of liability.  The language is
straightforward and requires Travelers, and not the insured, to
make the payment on any claim or judgment before Travelers'
obligations terminate due to exhaustion of policy limits, the
court pointed out.  Travelers cannot, under the terms of the
policies, retroactively exhaust its policies, the court said.  The
policies were exhausted as of the date Travelers made its payment,
not the date CNH did, the court added.  Travelers made payments
that exhausted the applicable limit of liability on or about July
6, 2015 and not May 2009.  Accordingly, the terms of the
applicable policies excuse Travelers from any further payments
that CNH contends are owed under the policies after July 6, 2015,
the court concluded.

The court clarified that the decision does not address the amounts
Travelers may owe for defense costs incurred by CNH prior to July
6, 2015, and will address this remaining issue at a hearing
schedule among the parties on October 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
(Eastern).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated September 21, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/Y6ixU4 from Leagle.com.

Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C.
Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware and James M. Davis, Esq. --
jdavis@reedsmith.com -- Thomas A. Marrinson, Esq. --
tmarrinson@reedsmith.com -- Evan T. Knott, Esq. --
eknott@reedsmith.com -- and Emily E. Garrison, Esq. --
egarrison@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth
A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell,
Esq. -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com -- and Dale E. Hausman, Esq. --
dhausman@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC.
Attorneys for Travelers Indemnity Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Wins Partial Summary Judgment vs. Wyman
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION
CASTPARTS CORP. and WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action
No. H-15-0576 (S.D. Tex.), arises out of asbestos personal-injury
claims stemming from the operations of Cameron Iron Works at its
Katy Road facility.  Cooper acquired Cameron Iron Works in 1989.
From 1989 to 1994 Cameron Iron Works operated primarily in two
business units at the Katy Road facility: the Oil Tools Division
and Forged Products.  In January of 1994 Wyman purchased the
Forged Products business from Cooper pursuant to the Amended and
Restated Stock Purchase Agreement at issue in this action. In
January of 1995 Cooper transferred the Oil Tools division to
Cameron International Corporation pursuant to an Asset Transfer
Agreement.

Cooper then brought this action, asserting two claims: (1) a
declaratory judgment interpreting the SPA and confirming that the
Defendants assumed personal-injury asbestos liabilities related to
the Forged Products division and are required to indemnify and
defend for those liabilities pursuant to the SPA; and (2) a
declaratory judgment that the arbitration panel's decision in the
Cooper-Cameron arbitration has collateral estoppel or res judicata
effect in this action.  Following the completion of fact
discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. Cooper seeks
summary judgment that Wyman is liable for asbestos personal-injury
claims under the SPA as a matter of law, and the Defendants seek
summary judgment in their favor on both of Cooper's claims.

Judge Sim Lake of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted Cooper's
Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denied the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment in Cooper's favor is appropriate on its first
claim regarding construction of the SPA's indemnity provisions as
they apply to Wyman, Judge Lake held.  The parties' agreement
unambiguously assigns the duty to indemnify and defend asbestos
personal-injury claims stemming from employment at the Katy Road
site to Wyman, the judge noted.  However, fact issues remain
regarding the meaning of the $100,000 "aggregate amount of Losses"
in Section 5.22(c), Precision's liability as a non-signatory to
the SPA, and Cooper's estoppel claims, the judge said.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
September 14, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/w59iz0 from
Leagle.com.

Cooper Industries, L.L.C., Plaintiff, is represented by Samantha
Porphy Ade, Esq. -- sade@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP.

Cooper Industries, L.L.C., Plaintiff, is represented by Franz
Michael Stenglein, Esq. -- fstenglein@kslaw.com -- King Spalding
LLP.

Precision Castparts Corp., Defendant, is represented by Thomas
Melvin Gregor, Esq. -- Gregor Rippy PLLC, Joel A. Mullin, Esq. --
joel.mullin@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Reed W. Morgan, Esq. --
reed.morgan@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

Wyman-Gordon Company, Defendant, is represented by Thomas Melvin
Gregor, Gregor Rippy PLLC, Joel A. Mullin, Stoel Rives LLP & Reed
W. Morgan, Stoel Rives LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial in Suit vs. RJ Reynolds Directed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CRANE CO., R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., and
HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO., Appellants, v. RICHARD DELISLE and ALINE
DELISLE, his wife, Appellees, Nos. 4D13-4351 and 4D14-146 (Fla.
App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District,
reversed and remanded the case for entry of a directed verdict for
Crane and for a new trial on all issues as to R.J. Reynolds as the
court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony.

Crane Co. and R.J. Reynolds appeal from an adverse jury verdict in
favor of DeLisle in which the jury found that both appellants'
products containing asbestos were substantial contributing causes
to appellee DeLisle's mesothelioma and awarded substantial
damages.  Crane primarily argues that the court erred in not
excluding expert causation testimony, in denying its motion for
directed verdict, and in excluding Fabre defendants from the
verdict form.  R.J. Reynolds argues that the court erred in
admitting expert testimony and in refusing a non-standard jury
instruction.  Both Crane and R.J. Reynolds argue that the court
abused its discretion in failing to grant a remittitur.  DeLisle
cross-appeals the inclusion of a Fabre defendant on the verdict
form.

The District Court of Appeal said that at a new trial, the court
should also reconsider the prior inclusion of Owens-Corning on the
verdict form as a Fabre defendant, as raised on cross-appeal by
DeLisle. Dr. Rasmuson testified that DeLisle's exposure to Owens-
Corning products containing asbestos would be a substantial
contributing factor to DeLisle's mesothelioma, but his testimony
on this issue did not meet the test of Daubert, the court said.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 14, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/iT3OLn from Leagle.com.

Rebecca C. Kibbe, Esq. -- rebecca.kibbe@klgates.com -- K&L Gates
LLP, Miami, for appellant Crane Co.

Elliot H. Scherker, Esq. -- scherkere@gtlaw.com, Sabrina R.
Ferris, Esq., Julissa Rodriguez, Esq. -- rodriguezju@gtlaw.com,
Brigid F. Cech Samole, Esq. -- cechsamoleb@gtlaw.com, and
Stephanie L. Varela, Esq. -- varelas@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., Miami, for appellants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
and Hollingsworth & Vose Co.

Gary M. Farmer, Sr., Esq. -- farmergm@att.net -- Farmer Jaffe
Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman P.L., Fort Lauderdale, and David
A. Jagolinzer. Esq. -- The Ferraro Law Firm, Miami, for appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed's Summary Judgment Bid in "George" OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEONA GEORGE, as Executrix of the Estate of
Peter George, Deceased, and LEONA GEORGE, in her own right,
Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., et al., Defendants. No. 2:16-
cv-00115-CB (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted
Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The lone issue presented in Lockheed's Motion is whether it
consented to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by registering
to do business in the state as a foreign corporation. Pennsylvania
filing-records indicate that Lockheed has been registered to do
business in Pennsylvania from 1996 through the present. The
parties agree that no other basis for personal jurisdiction
exists.

Peter George died of mesothelioma on July 20, 2014. The executrix
of his estate, Plaintiff Leona George alleges that George's death
was the result of his exposure to asbestos dust and fibers
contained in products manufactured by one or more of the
Defendants. Plaintiff avers that George was in the Navy from 1955-
1957, and the Reserves from 1957-1961 and later worked for the
Carpenters Union from 1959-mid 1970s, Superior Steel from the mid-
1970s-1979, and was self-employed from mid-1970s-2000s. George
allegedly encountered asbestos products during an unspecified
portion of his work history.

Judge Bissoon pointed out that in the instant case, Lockheed first
registered to do business in Pennsylvania in 1996.  George's
military service, during which time he allegedly was exposed to
asbestos in Lockheed's products, extended from 1955 to 1961.
Assuming, without deciding, that consent-by-registration remains
viable post-Daimler, Lockheed's registration to do business in
Pennsylvania occurred decades after the alleged injury, and it
provides no basis for exercising jurisdiction, the judge said.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 16, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/kpsHmv from Leagle.com

LEONA GEORGE, Plaintiff, is represented by David P. Chervenick,
Esq. -- Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C..

LEONA GEORGE, Plaintiff, is represented by Jason T. Shipp, Esq. --
Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, David P. Chervenick, Esq. --
Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C. & Jason T. Shipp, Esq. -- Goldberg,
Persky, Jennings & White.

ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Defendant, is represented by Jennifer E.
Watson, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by Eric L. Horne, Esq.
-- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott &
Daniel J. Sinclair, Esq. -- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert,
Seamans, Cherin & Mellott.

CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by John C.
McMeekin, II, Esq. -- jmcmeekin@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson
LLP.

DANA CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by Jennifer E. Watson,
Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

EATON CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by Jason W. Rubin,
Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, pro hac vice.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by Bryan S.
Neft, Esq. -- BSN1@Pietragallo.com -- Pietragallo Gordon Alfano
Bosick & Raspanti, LLP.

J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, is represented by
Joseph L. Orszulak, II, Esq. -- jorszulak@moodklaw.com -- Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by Richard
C. Polley, Esq. -- rpolley@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey &
Chilcote, Brian T. Clark, Esq. -- clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier
Yee, LLP, pro hac vice, Guy P. Glazier, glazier@glazieryee.com --
Glazier Yee LLP, pro hac vice & Laura P. Yee, Esq. --
yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, pro hac vice.

SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by Jennifer E.
Watson, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by
Jennifer E. Watson, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Reverses Ruling on Switchgear Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
in part and reversed in part the District Court's order, and
remanded the action styled In the case captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) relating to Steven
Frankenberger, Special Administrator for the Estate of Howard L.
Frankenberger*, Appellant. *(Amended pursuant to the Clerk's order
entered March 21, 2016), No. 15-1988, for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

Steven Frankenberger, on behalf of the estate of Howard
Frankenberger, appeals an order of the District Court dismissing
his civil suit against CBS Corporation.  He asserts state law
causes of action arising from Howard Frankenberger's exposure to
asbestos during his forty-five years working as a pipefitter at
various facilities in Illinois and Indiana, which he alleges was
caused by asbestos-containing turbines and switchgears at those
facilities.  Following discovery, CBS Corporation moved for
summary judgment, and the District Court granted the motion.

While the Third Circuit agrees with the District Court that
Frankenberger's turbine-related claim fails to demonstrate CBS
Corporation was a cause of his asbestos exposure, the Third
Circuit disagrees with its conclusion that the switchgear-related
claim is similarly deficient.

A full-text copy of the Opinion of the Court dated September 13,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/BGeH0V from Leagle.com

Robert G. McCoy, Esq. [ARGUED], Cascino Vaughn Law Offices, 220
South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60607, Counsel for Appellant.

Christopher G. Conley, Esq. -- cgconley@ewhlaw.com [ARGUED], Evert
Weathersby & Houff, 200 Cleveland Road, Suite 6, Bogart, GA 30622,
Counsel for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valid Assignment of Insurance Rights to Viking
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE VIKING PUMP, INC. AND WARREN PUMPS,
LLC INSURANCE APPEALS, Nos. 518, 2014, 523, 2014, 525, 2014, 528,
2014 (Del.), the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior
Court's judgment in part and reversed in part with respect to its
determination of the Excess Policies' coverage for defense costs.

This is a consolidated appeal in an insurance-coverage dispute
from separate judgments by the Court of Chancery and the Superior
Court.  Viking Pump, Inc., and Warren Pumps, LLC, seek to recover
under insurance policies issued to a third company, Houdaille
Industries, Inc.

In the 1980's, Viking and Warren acquired pump manufacturing
businesses from Houdaille. As a result, Viking and Warren have
been confronted with potential liability flowing from personal
injury claims made by plaintiffs alleging damages in connection
with asbestos exposure claims dating back to when the pump
manufacturing businesses were owned by Houdaille (the "Houdaille-
Era Claims"). Each year from 1972 through 1985, Houdaille
purchased occurrence-based primary and umbrella insurance from
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Above the Liberty umbrella
layer, Houdaille purchased layers of excess insurance. In total,
Houdaille purchased 35 excess policies through 20 different
carriers. Houdaille's 14-year insurance tower offered $17.5
million in primary coverage, $42 million in umbrella coverage, and
$427.5 million in excess coverage.

Viking and Warren now seek to fund the liabilities arising from
the Houdaille-Era Claims using the comprehensive insurance program
originally purchased by Houdaille. The insurance companies that
issued the Excess Policies contend that Viking and Warren are not
entitled to use the Excess Policies to respond to the Houdaille-
Era Claims. The Excess Insurers also dispute the extent of any
coverage available, particularly with respect to defense costs.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Chancery correctly held
that there were valid assignments of insurance rights to Warren
and Viking under the Excess Policies.  The Supreme Court further
held that the Superior Court correctly held that the 1980-1985
Liberty Primary Policies are exhausted, but held that the Superior
Court erred with respect to the trigger of coverage under the
Excess Policies.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 12, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/jOsVoI from Leagle.com.

David J. Baldwin, Esquire -- dbaldwin@potteranderson.com, Jennifer
C. Wasson, Esquire -- jwasson@potteranderson.com, Michael B. Rush,
Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Of
Counsel: Robin L. Cohen Esquire (Argued) --
rcohen@mckoolsmith.com, Keith McKenna, Esquire --
kmckenna@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith, New York, New York, for
Appellant Warren Pumps LLC.

Paul Cottrell, Esquire, Tighe & Cottrell, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Laura S. McKay, Esquire -- lmckay@hww-
law.com -- Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP, Chicago, Illinois; AND
Anthony G. Flynn, Esquire -- aflynn@ycst.com, Timothy Jay Houseal,
Esquire -- thouseal@ycst.com, Jennifer M. Kinkus, Esquire --
jkinkus@ycst.com -- Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Lynn H. Murray, Esquire (Argued)
-- lhmurray@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Attorneys for The
Continental Insurance Company as successor by merger to Fidelity &
Casualty Company of New York.

Lisa A. Schmidt, Esquire -- schmidt@rlf.com, Travis S. Hunter,
Esquire -- hunter@rlf.com, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Michael P. Foradas, Esquire
(Argued) -- michael.foradas@kirkland.com, Lisa G. Esayian, Esquire
-- lisa.esayian@kirkland.com, William T. Pruitt, Esquire --
william.pruitt@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellant Viking Pump, Inc.

Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire (Argued), Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware AND Garrett B. Moritz, Esquire
and Nicholas D. Mozal, Esquire, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Tancred Schiavoni, Esquire and
Gary Svirsky, Esquire, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York;
AND John D. Balaguer, Esquire, White and Williams LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Brian G. Fox, Esquire and Lawrence A.
Nathanson, Esquire, Siegal & Park, Mount Laurel, New Jersey,
Attorneys for Defendants TIG Insurance Company, f/k/a
International Insurance Company, with respect to policies numbered
5220113076 and 5220282357, and Westchester Fire Insurance Company,
with respect to policy numbered 5220489339, by operation of
novation; ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company (f/k/a CIGNA
Property & Casualty Insurance Company), as successor-in-interest
to Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, but only as
respects policies issued through Cravens, Dargan & Company,
Pacific Coast (improperly named as The Central National Insurance
Company of Omaha); and Century Indemnity Company, as successor to
CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North
America and Century Indemnity Company as successor to CIGNA
Specialty Insurance Company (f/k/a California Union Insurance
Company).

Paul Cottrell, Esquire, Tighe & Cottrell, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Laura S. McKay, Esquire, Hinkhouse Williams
Walsh LLP, Chicago, Illinois; AND Anthony G. Flynn, Esquire,
Timothy Jay Houseal, Esquire, Jennifer M. Kinkus, Esquire, Young
Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain London Market
Insurance Companies, Granite State Insurance Company, Lexington
Insurance Company And National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA.

Robert J. Katzenstein, Esquire, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Christopher R. Carroll, Esquire,
Heather E. Simpson, Esquire, Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC, Basking
Ridge, New Jersey, Attorneys for TIG Insurance Company, as
successor by merger to International Insurance Company, as
successor by merger to International Surplus Lines Insurance
Company (Policy No. XSI 5217 only).

Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esquire, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Laura S. McKay, Esquire, Douglas M. DeWitt,
Esquire, Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP, Chicago, Illinois; AND
Anthony G. Flynn, Esquire, Timothy Jay Houseal, Esquire, Jennifer
M. Kinkus, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for OneBeacon America Insurance
Company as successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company, XL
Insurance America, Inc., as successor to Vanguard Insurance
Company, and Republic Insurance Company, n/k/a Starr Indemnity &
Liability Company.

James W. Semple, Esquire, Cooch & Taylor P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Kristin Suga Heres, Esquire, Zelle LLP,
Framingham, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendant Westport
Insurance Corporation.

Robert M. Greenberg, Esquire, Tybout Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington,
Delaware. Of Counsel: Amy R. Paulus, Esquire, Mark D. Paulson,
Esquire and Don R. Sampen, Esquire, Clausen Miller P.C., Chicago,
Illinois, Attorneys for Old Republic Insurance Company.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire, Seth A. Niederman, Esquire, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Kathleen D.
Monnes, Esquire, Joseph K. Scully, Esquire and John W. Cerreta,
Esquire, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, Attorneys for
Defendant, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company f/k/a The Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grant of Summary Judgment in "Mitchell" Urged
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JIMMY R. MITCHELL AND CONNIE MITCHELL, his
wife Plaintiffs, v. ATWOOD & MORILL CO., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-958-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R.
Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware recommended granting both Defendants Nash Engineering
Co.'s motion for summary judgment and Foster Wheeler's motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Mitchell developed lung cancer as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, in part during
the course of his employment as a boiler fireman with the U.S.
Navy from 1976 to 1979.  The Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Mitchell
was injured due to exposure to asbestos-containing products that
the Defendants manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert negligence, punitive damages,
strict liability, and loss of consortium claims.

Nash argues that because Mr. Mitchell did not identify exposure to
any Nash product, Nash is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Nash contends that Plaintiffs may not establish causation by
showing that Nash products were merely present somewhere at Mr.
Mitchell's workplace.  The Plaintiffs respond that a genuine issue
of material fact remains because Mr. Mitchell testified that he
worked on all the pumps in Fire Room Number Two, and Navy purchase
orders show Nash's asbestos gaskets were used on centrifugal pumps
on the USS Gridley.

Foster Wheeler argues that summary judgment is warranted because
there is no evidence Mr. Mitchell was exposed to an asbestos-
containing Foster Wheeler product.

Judge Fallon held that the Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence
indicating that exposure to a Nash pump was a substantial factor
in causing Mr. Mitchell's alleged injuries.  Therefore, the court
should grant Nash's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Fallon also held that because there was absence of evidence
that original Foster Wheeler components remained on the Foster
Wheeler boilers on which Mr. Mitchell worked, or that replacement
components were manufactured by Foster Wheeler, the Plaintiffs
cannot support the assertion that exposure to Foster Wheeler
boilers was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Mitchell's lung
cancer.  Moreover, the court recommends that summary judgment
based on the government contractor defense is not warranted.
However, Foster Wheeler is, nonetheless, entitled to summary
judgment based upon lack of causation under maritime law, the
judge said.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated September
16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/qJM0hT from Leagle.com.

Jimmy R. Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Connie Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Atwood & Morrill Co., Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott
Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@fandpnet.com -- Franklin & Prokopik &
Paul D. Sunshine, Esq. -- psunshine@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney &
Kluger, P.C..

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Esq. -- ajdellaporta@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC,
Allison L. Texter, Esq. -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz
Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. --
smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Esq. -- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott
Thompson, Franklin & Prokopik & Paul D. Sunshine, McGivney &
Kluger, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCS' Bid to Dismiss "Richardson" Partially OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES NORMAN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. PCS
PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC. (formerly known as AQUITANE, formerly
known as TEXAS GULF) and BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00068-GCM (W.D.N.C.), Judge Graham C.
Mullen of the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the
Defendants PCS Phosphate Company Inc.'s and Broadspire Services,
Inc.'s Motions to Dismiss in part and denied in part, and
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claim for Unjust
Enrichment.

Richardson initiated this Complaint on February 9, 2016, alleging
that the Defendants have not promptly paid for the medical
treatment of asbestos-related conditions through Richardson's
workers' compensation claim, including the treatment paid for by
Medicare and Richardson's Medicare supplemental insurance plan.
Richardson's Complaint alleges: (1) Medicare Private Right of
Action under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1395y(b)(3)(a); (2) breach of
contract; (3) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (4) unjust
enrichment. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

The Defendant contends that because the Plaintiff has asserted a
breach of contract claim, he may not sue for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment expressly incorporates
by reference all of the allegations alleging the existence of an
express contract.

It appears to the Court at this point in the litigation that there
are factual issues as to when the "demonstrated responsibility"
arose, and whether the obligation was in fact paid in full.
Accordingly, at this point, the Court cannot conclude that this
action is moot, Judge Mullen said.

The Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment. Judge Mullen pointed out that "In order to prevail on
a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove that (1) it
conferred a benefit on the defendant, (2) the benefit was not
conferred officiously or gratuitously, (3) the benefit is
measurable, and (4) the defendant consciously accepted the
benefit."  Under North Carolina law, "[a]n unjust enrichment claim
is available only in the absence of an express contract between
the parties," the judge further pointed out.

The Defendant contends that because the Plaintiff has asserted a
breach of contract claim, he may not sue for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment expressly incorporates
by reference all of the allegations alleging the existence of an
express contract, the judge noted. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim
for unjust enrichment must be dismissed, Judge Mullen concluded.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 9, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/Tn1yNU from Leagle.com.

James Norman Richardson, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael B.
Pross, Esq. -- Wallace & Graham.

James Norman Richardson, Plaintiff, is represented by Vernon
Rollins Sumwalt, Esq. -- vernon@sumwaltlaw.com -- Sumwalt Law
Firm.

PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., Defendant, is represented by S.
McKinley Gray, III, Esq. -- smg@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and Smith
& William A. Oden, III, Esq. -- wao@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and
Smith P.A..

Broadspire Services, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jon A.
Berkelhammer, Esq. -- jon.berkelhammer@elliswinters.com -- Ellis &
Winters LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cedarcroft Wins Summary Judgment in "Umphrey"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RALPH E. UMPHREY, Plaintiff, v. CEDARCROFT
HOME INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01094 (M.D.
Tenn.), Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, granted the instant Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Cedarcroft Home Inc., Peggy Zide, T.A. Bryan, and John
Bryan and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the Cedarcroft
Defendants.

The Plaintiff filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action alleging
that the Defendants committed perjury and fraud to the Social
Security Administration, and that they had asbestos and
formaldehyde in their main building, resulting in personal injury
to him.  The Plaintiff seeks $777,000.00 for detriment of
character and damages due to Asbestos and Phamyldihide.

In their motion for summary judgment, the Cedarcroft Defendants
argued that they are entitled to Summary Judgment because the
undisputed facts show that the Plaintiff was not exposed to
asbestos or formaldehyde when he resided at Cedarcroft's facility,
and that the Plaintiff personally authorized Cedarcroft to receive
his Social Security benefits while he was a resident at
Cedarcroft; thus, Cedarcroft did not commit any fraud when it
submitted a form to the Social Security Administration that
Plaintiff expressly executed.

Magistrate Knowles held that although the Plaintiff avers that he
was exposed to asbestos and formaldehyde during his residency at
Cedarcroft, the undisputed facts establish that: (1) Cedarcroft
completed its asbestos remediation work in 2005, prior to the
Plaintiff's residency; (2) TOSHA inspected the premises and
concluded that no other asbestos remediation work was required;
(3) no remediation work was performed when the Plaintiff was a
resident at Cedarcroft; and (4) Cedarcroft has never maintained or
stored any formaldehyde or formaldehyde products on its premises.
Accordingly, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff was not exposed
to either asbestos and formaldehyde during his residency at
Cedarcroft, and Cedarcroft Defendants are entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law on this claim, the magistrate said.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 22,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/6QStqA from Leagle.com.

Ralph E. Umphrey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cedarcroft Homes Incorporated, Defendant, is represented by Tricia
T. Olson, Esq. -- Adams and Reese LLP & Rocklan W. King, III, Esq.
-- rocky.king@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP.

Peggy Zide, Defendant, is represented by Tricia T. Olson, Adams
and Reese LLP & Rocklan W. King, III, Adams and Reese LLP.

Aleks Osipchuk, Defendant, is represented by F. Laurens Brock,
Esq. -- larry.brock@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP & Tricia T.
Olson, Adams and Reese LLP.

J. A. Bryan, Defendant, is represented by Tricia T. Olson, Adams
and Reese LLP & Rocklan W. King, III, Adams and Reese LLP.

Thomas Bryan, Defendant, is represented by Tricia T. Olson, Adams
and Reese LLP & Rocklan W. King, III, Adams and Reese LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands "Bozeman" to La. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana granted William Gregory
Bozeman's Emergency Motion to Remand the case captioned WILLIAM
GREGORY BOZEMAN, v. WYETH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ET AL,Civil Action
No. 16-14606 (E.D. La.), to the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans.

This case arises out of Plaintiff's alleged exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products, which purportedly caused him to
contract malignant mesothelioma.  Bozeman, a citizen of Louisiana,
worked for Arizona Chemical Company, later known as International
Paper Company, from 1975 to 1981 and 1981 to 1999. During those
years, he worked for International Paper in Louisiana and was
repeatedly exposed to asbestos. He also claims that he was exposed
to asbestos secondarily due to asbestos fibers brought home on the
clothes and person of his father, William H. Bozeman, from
approximately 1956 to the late 1970s as a result of his father's
work at Arizona Chemical Company. Bozeman filed suit in Orleans
Parish CDC on October 29, 2015 against a number of defendants.

Bozeman filed the instant motion after Defendant Wyeth Holding
Company, formerly known as American Cyanamid Company removed the
case from Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on the
eve of trial.

According to Judge Lemelle, the Defendant submits three pieces of
evidence in an attempt to negate the possibility of recovery
against Taylor: the deposition testimony of Plaintiff, the
deposition testimony of three of his co-workers, and Plaintiff's
Social Security Earnings Report.  According to Cyanamid, this
evidence shows that the Plaintiff and his co-workers had no
knowledge of Taylor and that the Plaintiff never worked for
Taylor.  Even assuming the evidence does support such conclusions,
it still does not negate the possibility of the Plaintiff's
recovery against Taylor, Judge Lemelle said.

The Plaintiff contends that Taylor supplied Cyanamid and
International Paper facilities throughout Louisiana with asbestos-
containing insulation and other asbestos related products during
the relevant period in which the Plaintiff and/or his father
worked for International Paper. Judge Lemelle noted that none of
the evidence submitted by the Defendant precludes the Plaintiff's
chance of recovery based on these allegations.  The fact that the
Plaintiff and his coworkers did not know the name of a potential
supplier is not convincing evidence as to whether that supplier
actually provided the Plaintiff's employer with asbestos-
containing products at a time and place where he was working with,
and exposed to, such products, the judge said.  For the same
reason, the Plaintiff's Social Security Earnings Report is also
unpersuasive, the judge added.

Judge Lemelle pointed out that even though the burden here is on
Defendant, the Plaintiff submits affirmative evidence to the
contrary.  The affidavit of Dwight Corcoran lends some support to
the Plaintiff's allegation that Taylor supplied asbestos-
containing products to the Plaintiff's employer during the
relevant time period, the judge noted. While it is far from
conclusive, it certainly raises a material issue of fact as to
Taylor's liability, the judge said.  Consequently, and considering
all unchallenged factual allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, Cyanamid has failed to meet its heavy burden of
proving improper joinder, the judge concluded.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 14, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/kvxg8J from Leagle.com.

William Gregory Bozeman, Plaintiff, is represented by Mickey P.
Landry, Esq. -- mlandry@landryswarr.com -- Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC.

William Gregory Bozeman, Plaintiff, is represented by Amanda Jones
Ballay, Esq. -- aballay@landryswarr.com -- Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC, Barrett Naman, Esq. -- Nemeroff Law Firm, Frank J.
Swarr,  Esq. -- fswarr@landryswarr.com -- Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC, Jeffrey A. O'Connell, Esq. -- Nemeroff Law Firm,
Matthew C. Clark,  Esq. -- mclark@landryswarr.com --Landry, Swarr
& Cannella, LLC & Philip C. Hoffman,  Esq. --
phoffman@landryswarr.com -- Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC.

Wyeth Holdings Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Erin Fury
Parkinson, Esq. -- eparkinson@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC, Jose L. Barro, III, Esq. -- jbarro@mcglinchey.com
-- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Shannon Suggs Sale, Esq. --
ssale@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sister Sues Companies Over Sibling's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a St. Clair County woman is suing dozens of companies,
alleging their negligence caused her sister to die of asbestos-
related causes.

Fredetta Johnson, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Diane Walton, deceased, filed a lawsuit Aug. 29 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Aurora Pump Co., Borg-Wagner
Morse TEC LLC, CBS Corp., Certain-Teed Corp., Cleaver-Brooks, et
al, alleging negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care and
caution for the safety of people working with asbestos-containing
products.

According to the complaint, on Nov. 25, 2015, Diane Walton first
became aware she had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease, which was caused by defendants' negligence. The suit says
due to the course and scope of her employment, which began in 1964
as a cleaner at Quality Maintenance, she was exposed to or
absorbed great amounts of asbestos fibers that caused her to
develop lung cancer. This ultimately led to her death Feb. 21,
2016, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos
in their products and failed to provide adequate warnings and
instructions concerning the safe methods of working with products
containing asbestos.

Johnson seeks trial by jury, judgment against the defendants of
more than $50,000 for economic damages and at least $50,000 to
compensate for Walton's injuries. She is represented by attorneys
Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-446


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Tightens Reins on Proving Causation
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Latimer, Esq. -- walter.latimer@wilsonelser.com -- at
Wilson Elser, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote
that on September 14, 2016, Florida joined a growing number of
jurisdictions that reject the "any exposure" theory of proving
causation. Variously known as the "cumulative exposure" or "each
and every exposure" theory, it is based on a form of junk science
that cannot meet the Daubert test for the admissibility of
scientific evidence. According to proponents, the actual level of
exposure that a claimant may have had to asbestos doesn't matter.
Instead, a person's asbestos-related disease is caused by any
exposure he or she may have had to an asbestos product that was
above the background level naturally occurring in the environment.

The "any exposure" theory can be difficult to challenge. With it,
plaintiffs proceed without industrial hygienists and avoid any
sort of an exposure assessment. Essentially, plaintiffs can rely
on medical testimony that a disease is consistent with asbestos
exposure, coupled with a bare-bones occupational history that the
plaintiff performed work that is known to expose workers to any
level of asbestos. Plaintiffs' experts opine that since no level
of asbestos is known to be safe, any exposure is a substantial
contributing cause of the disease. This approach can be applied to
any disease, such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer,
since all may be caused by exposure to asbestos. The key to a
successful defense is to challenge the expert opinions at the
pretrial stage and preclude the jury from considering this "junk
science."

In Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2133a (September 14,
2016), that is exactly what the defendants did. Unfortunately, the
trial judge allowed all of the plaintiff's experts to testify.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and held that
such opinions could not meet the rigors of the Daubert standard,
which is used by most states and became effective in Florida in
2013. In short, Florida now requires that expert testimony be
based on sufficient facts and be the product of reliable
principles and methods, and that those principles and methods are
applied reliably to the facts of the case. This threshold must be
established to the satisfaction of the trial court before the jury
may hear the expert opinions.

Even though it is based on the federal standard, the Daubert
standard is still fairly new in Florida, so there have not yet
been many published opinions interpreting it. This decision comes
out strongly in support of the trial court's gatekeeper function
and requires the trial courts to critically examine the bases
underlying any expert opinions. It is an important decision that
should have ramifications far beyond causation in asbestos cases.
It can be expected to affect the admissibility of all expert
opinions in every type of case, but particularly in toxic tort
cases. The trial court's decision on these issues will not be
overturned unless it has abused its discretion. Even with this
high standard, the appellate court found the trial judge abused
his discretion by allowing the testimony of plaintiffs' four
experts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA To Remove Asbestos From New York Factory
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to stop
the potential spread of asbestos at the former Arkell and Smiths
Sack Co. facility in Canajoharie, N.Y. Exposure to asbestos can
lead to lung cancer and mesothelioma.

"At the request of the local government, the EPA sent staff and
federal resources to stop the potential release of asbestos," said
EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck in an EPA press release.
"EPA will make sure that the buildings are taken down properly and
that asbestos is not spread into the community."

The EPA took building and debris samples from the site in February
2016 after originally being notified by Mayor Francis Avery of
Canajoharie in November 2015 about hazardous conditions posed by
the dilapidated and collapsing buildings at the complex. It was
determined that the asbestos from deteriorating structures on the
site has the potential to impact the surrounding area, as asbestos
within the building has deteriorated to a point that it could
spread beyond the property. Homes are located within 30 feet of
the site.

Going forward, the EPA will demolish the buildings, and asbestos-
containing materials will be either removed or secured at the site
and disposed of properly at permitted facilities. The air will
also be monitored during operations to ensure that asbestos is not
spreading.

While this site is not on the Superfund National Priorities List,
the Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters
should pay for the cleanups rather than passing the costs to
taxpayers. The EPA will seek to hold any liable parties
accountable for the costs of the investigation and cleanup.

The original factory, which was built in the 1860s, sits on a 2.6
acre site and contains seven interconnected buildings covering
65,000 square feet. The property was sold in 2007 before
eventually falling into disrepair.

The EPA is coordinating with the Village of Canajoharie and local
police to minimize disruptions during its cleanup work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Holdings Estimation Motion Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Chetsason, writing for Bankrupt Company News, reported that
Energy Future Holdings Debtor affiliate Texas Competitive Electric
Holdings Company (TCEH), together with its direct parent company,
Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company (EFCH) and certain of
TCEH's direct and indirect subsidiaries filed with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court a motion for entry of an order determining the
maximum value for distribution purposes only of the asbestos
bodily injury claims filed against the TCEH Debtors.

The motion explains, "In connection with the Asbestos Bar Date,
claimants filed approximately 32,000 Asbestos Proofs of Claim.
Based on the Debtors' and their advisors' preliminary analysis of
the Asbestos Proofs of Claim, the Debtors have preliminarily
identified approximately 5,000 Asbestos Proofs of Claim asserted
against the TCEH Debtors (the 'TCEH Asbestos Claims') . . . . As
noted in Exhibit F to the TCEH Disclosure Statement, the Debtors
anticipate that the aggregate liability of the Class C5 Claims
will be approximately $145,000,000. . . . The TCEH Debtors believe
that $17.2 million is a reasonable representation of the nominal
maximum aggregate value of the TCEH Asbestos Claims, solely for
purposes of calculating distributions to Holders of Allowed Class
C4 and C5 Claims."

The motion continues, "After a thorough review of the TCEH
Debtors' claims history and these chapter 11 cases, Dr. Vasquez
has identified a reasonable estimate of the aggregate maximum
potential value of the TCEH Asbestos Claims. In the Summary Ankura
Report, Dr. Vasquez examined the prepetition asbestos bodily
injury claims filed against the TCEH Debtors, including settled
claims, claims dismissed with zero settlement payment, and the
handful of asbestos claims filed against the TCEH Debtors that
were pending at the Petition Date."

The Court scheduled an October 21, 2016 hearing to consider the
motion, with objections due by October 6, 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machinist Family Gets New Shot at Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit vacated a summary judgment award in favor
of two asbestos-laden product manufacturers accused of causing a
Navy machinist's lung disease and death.

Robert Dale Gottschall worked as a marine machinist for the U.S.
Navy, Army and the Department of Defense from 1952 to 1989.

His many jobs exposed him to asbestos as the products he had to
handle contained the poisonous substance, according to a lawsuit
his daughter filed in 2012.

Gottschall's repeated inhalation of toxic asbestos fibers at work
allegedly gave him cumulative, progressive and incurable lung
diseases.

Following Gottschall's death in April 2010, his daughter, Kimbra
Gottschall, and four other heirs -- Debra Gaball, Raymond
Gottschall, Robert W. Gottschall, and Ronald Gottschall -- sued
asbestos product manufacturers in San Francisco federal court.

The four-count amended complaint brought claims for negligence,
products liability, survival and wrongful death.

But after dismissing several defendants, the court granted summary
judgment to two Virginia-based defendants, General Dynamics Corp.
and Huntington Ingalls Inc.

The Gottschall family appealed, and the Ninth Circuit vacated the
lower court's ruling Wednesday.

The lower court never ruled on the defendants' essential claim
that "the government made me do it" -- its government-contractor
defense, according to the four-page ruling.

"The defendant 'must show that it acted in compliance with
reasonably precise specifications imposed on it by the United
States in deciding whether to provide a warning,'" the unsigned
ruling states. "Here, the parties pointed to conflicting evidence
regarding the Navy's labeling policies, so summary judgment is not
appropriate."

The three-judge panel also wrote, "The California Supreme Court
has recently made clear that the summary judgment entered by the
district court, in reliance on a decision by the multi- district
litigation court in Pennsylvania, was based on an incorrect
understanding of California law."

California's high court held that a product supplier must show
that it actually and reasonably relied on a knowledgeable
intermediary to warn end users in order to establish a defense
under the sophisticated-intermediary doctrine, the ruling states.

The Gottschall family's attorneys with Brayton Purcell in Novato,
Calif., did not return requests for comment emailed Thursday.

Huntington's San Francisco-based attorneys with Tucker Ellis and
General Dynamics' attorneys with Brydon Hugo & Parker and Jackson
Jenkins Renstrom also did not return requests for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother, Son Launch Asbestosis Lawsuit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
asbestosis lawsuit has been filed against the giant multinational
petroleum enterprise Chevron alleging gross negligence that led to
the death of a husband and father from Texas. Plaintiff Margaret
Stephens, who hails from Spring Branch in Texas, is joined by her
Australian-based son Gary Stephens in her lawsuit against Chevron
USA.

According to the Southeast Texas Record (08/22/16), the late
Charles Stephens -- who died August 8 of last year -- was an
employee of Chevron. The asbestosis claim alleges that Stephens
was exposed to asbestos fibers during his time at Chevron.
Asbestos is a known carcinogen that is most dangerous when free-
floating. While asbestos was used in construction and insulation
applications for decades before its carcinogenic properties became
better understood and more widely known in the 1970s, proper
management of asbestos can minimize health risks. This includes
allowing hidden asbestos to remain in an undisturbed state out of
range from human exposure -- or, if removed, the use of proper
protective gear including breathing apparatus to prevent ingestion
of asbestos fibers.

Exposure can lead to asbestos cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma
-- all of which can incubate and remain hidden in the body for
decades before suddenly emerging into a health hazard for which
there is no cure. Death can be painful -- as it is alleged to have
been for Stephens. His family consulted an asbestosis lawyer in
determining grounds for a lawsuit to pursue asbestos compensation.

Margaret Stephens and her co-plaintiff son allege in their
asbestosis disease claim that Chevron failed to warn Charles
Stephens in a timely manner as to the risks and dangers inherent
with exposure to asbestos, and the long-term health implications
of ingesting asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs also assert Chevron
did not do enough to prevent Stephens from exposure.

While Margaret Stephens does not knowingly have asbestosis or
similar health implications of her own, there have been cases
whereby asbestos workers infect their spouses with asbestos by
wearing their fiber-laden work clothes home from the workplace.
This can place asbestos fibers in the family car, on household
furniture or in the laundry room, where spouses often undertake
their spouse's laundry. There have been cases where the spouses of
asbestos workers have died from asbestosis disease without ever
having set foot in the workplace. Rather, asbestos fibers have
been ingested from laundering their husband's work clothes.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, exemplary/punitive damages and
legal costs. The asbestosis lawsuit is Margaret Stephens and Gary
Stephens v. Chevron USA, Case No. D-198815, in Jefferson County
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Farmer Dies of Asbestos-Related Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Macpherson, writing for Accrington Observer, reported that a
retired farmer died of an incurable cancer linked to asbestos
exposure, an inquest heard.

Harry Boys, from Accrington, was admitted to Royal Blackburn
Hospital on June 7 this year and lung biopsy tests later confirmed
he was suffering from mesothelioma.

An inquest at Blackburn Coroners Court heard how the 85-year-old's
disease was 'considered to be incurable' and he was given
palliative care until his death on July 1.

Coroner Michael Singleton ruled that Mr Boys died of the
occupational disease mesothelioma and said he has a 'very strong
association with exposure to asbestos'.

The inquest heard how Mr Boys, of Pinewood Drive, previously ran a
pig and poultry farm in Burnley after leaving school.

His son Howard Boys told the hearing that his father then worked
at Associated Dairies in Accrington.

Mr Singleton told the inquest that it was 'known locally' at the
time that 'there were known to be buildings that had asbestos in
them'. The inquest also heard how it was 'not uncommon' for farm
outbuildings in the 1960s to be 'roofed in asbestos sheeting'.

Concluding the inquest, Mr Singleton said: "Doctors tell me than
in 95 per cent of cases of mesothelioma there is a direct link
with exposure to asbestos.

"There's a school of thought that says that five per cent are
entirely natural. There's also a school of thought among doctors
that say those five per cent simply cannot establish the link, but
it would be there if there was only evidence to support that.

"There is a divergence of medical opinion but within the coroners
court I work on the balance of probabilities. Having heard the
evidence I take the view that it is more likely than not that it
was during his working life that Harry Boys was exposed to
asbestos, as a consequence of which he developed the mesothelioma
from which he died."

Mr Singleton added: "Mesothelioma is a very aggressive,
distressing and debilitating tumour. It's distressing for not only
the person that has it but also for their loved ones.

"The fact that the period of time between diagnosis and your
father dying, no doubt at the time seemed tragically short, I have
to tell you from my experience that actually it was a great
blessing.

"That your father would not have wished, and nor would you, to
have seen him go through days and months of this most distressing
condition."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coroner Issues Warning Over Asbestos Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Macpherson, writing for Accrington Observer, reported that a
coroner has warned of a "ticking timebomb" relating to deaths
connected with asbestos exposure.

Michael Singleton, who is the senior coroner for Hyndburn, said
the number of deaths from the incurable cancer mesothelioma is
continuing to rise despite experts predicting a decline from 2014.

Mr Singleton's stark warning came following the conclusion of an
inquest into the death of Oswaldtwistle man Trevor Brennand who
was exposed to asbestos during his working life.

The 72-year-old, of Ward Avenue, died on July 11 this year after a
lung biopsy found malignant mesothelioma.

The inquest at Blackburn Coroners Court heard Mr Brennand had
previously worked as a joiner at RP Townley Ltd in Accrington
between 1959 and 1965 and used to cut asbestos sheets as an
apprentice to lay girders and for bespoke fire doors.

In a statement made during his life by Mr Brennand in respect of a
civil claim read at the hearing, he said: "I was not exposed to
asbestos every week but overall I would estimate I was exposed to
asbestos for an overall period of about one month out of every
year and I believe this was my most significant exposure to
asbestos."

Mr Brennand later worked at Shop Fitters Lancashire Ltd in
Oswaldtwistle between 1965 and 1988 and was again exposed to
asbestos as he used it to cover radiators and for suspended
ceilings, the hearing was told.

Mr Singleton ruled that Mr Brennand died from the occupational
disease of mesothelioma.

He told the inquest: "It seems quite remarkable that something we
were doing 30, 40, or even 50 years ago, which at the time we
seemed to think was some sort of miracle substance, because of its
ability in terms of conductivity and insulation, that it took many
decades for anyone to suddenly think 'hang on a minute, maybe
there are problems here'.

"I was told by those who are far more learned than I that we would
see a peak of cases around 2014 followed by a gradual dropping
off.

"I have to say that's not my experience. In this part of the world
at least, the number of cases continues to rise.

"Which leads me to the conclusion that there were many people who
were exposed to asbestos that are walking around like ticking time
bombs.

"What it makes me wonder is what are we doing now that in 20 or 30
years time we will be saying 'Really? We allowed people to do
that?'"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perth Man Dies After Asbestos Battle
-----------------------------------------------------
Liam Croy, writing for The West Australian, reported that a Perth
mesothelioma sufferer who won a record compensation payout from
James Hardie has died a week after marrying his partner.

Simon Lowes, 47, developed mesothelioma after playing as a child
in asbestos waste dumped at the Castledare miniature railway.

The father of two was diagnosed with mesothelioma of the stomach
in 2009. He had organs removed that year and was given a 50 per
cent chance of living until 2014.

Mr Lowes was awarded $2.07 million in damages in 2011 after a
Supreme Court Justice found James Hardie had caused or
significantly contributed to his cancer.

It was the highest award by a court for an asbestos claim in WA.

Asbestos tailings from the James Hardie factory were dumped near
the railway and Christian Brothers orphanage in the 1960s and
1970s.

Evidence showed the company ignored warnings from its own safety
expert and a health official to stop the dumping in the early
1970s.

Mr Lowes questioned how many lives had been changed by exposure to
the toxic dust.

Mr Lowes married Boossakorn Ammarin on Friday, September 16.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tribunal Affirms Prohibition Notice
----------------------------------------------------
Roise Connolly, writing for Irish Legal News, reported that an
Employment Tribunal unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by an
asbestos removal company, and affirmed the Prohibition Notice
issued by the Health & Safety Executive for Northern Ireland
(HSENI) due to the company's contravention of statutory provisions
governing asbestos removal that heightened the personal injury
risks at the site.

Cullen Asbestos Limited, licensed by HSENI to carry out asbestos
removal, sought to appeal a Prohibition Notice issued upon it on 3
December 2015. A three-member employment tribunal consisting of
Employment Judge Drennan QC, Mr H Stevenson, and Mr J Law heard
the appeal in August 2016.

Cullen Asbestos was contracted to perform asbestos removal works
at a site at 90 Ballybarnes Road, Newtownards, by the principal
building contractor, Gareth Roddy, who was engaged by the owner of
the site to undertake the refurbishment and extension of premises.
The work included the demolition of outbuildings, all of which
contained asbestos and one contained licensed asbestos.

Prohibition Notice

On 3 December 2015, the asbestos removal works at the site were
substantially completed and were awaiting a 'four stage clearance'
by the independent analyst. Dr Rowland Jones and Ms Kellie
McNamara carried out an inspection of the site on this day, and
issued the contested Prohibition Notice during the course of the
inspection.

The Prohibition Notice issued on 3 December 2015 under Article 24
of the Health & Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978,
stated that the removal of asbestos work at the site "will
involve, a risk of serious personal injury" due to insufficient
power to operate the main decontamination unit (DCU) and negative
pressure unit (NPU) on site at time of inspection.

This was in contravention of the Control of Asbestos at Work (NI)
Regulations 2012 because 'the DCU could not be used whilst the NPU
and ancillary equipment was switched on'.

The Prohibition Notice also stated that the said activities could
not be carried on unless the contraventions had been remedied, and
that the measures specified in the Schedule, which formed part of
the Prohibition Notice, required to be taken to remedy the said
contraventions or matters.

Approximately two hours after the Prohibition Notice was issued,
Mr Cullen, who had not been present on the site at the time of the
visit of Dr Jones and Ms McNamara, contacted Dr Jones and told him
the full mains electricity had been restored to the site and
assured Dr Jones this meant the DCU and NPU could both be fully
working at the same time.

Dr Jones accepted, at face value, what Mr Cullen had said to him
and did not ask him for further details on how this had been
achieved.  Consequently, he did not consider it necessary for him
and/or Ms McNamara to re-visit the site.

Dr Jones was satisfied, in light of what he was told by Mr Cullen,
the measures required to remedy the contraventions set out in the
Prohibition Notice had now been complied with and work could
therefore be resumed on site.

Tribunal Hearing

The tribunal was not satisfied with evidence provided by the main
contractor of the site and consequently dismissed statements made
by him. Similarly, the tribunal was critical of the inconsistent
statements made by an employee of Cullen Asbestos who had been
present during the inspection.

In reaching its decision, "the tribunal was fully aware that it
was not limited to reviewing the genuineness and/or the
reasonableness of the inspector's opinion but rather was required
to form its own view, paying due regard to the expertise of the
inspector" as per Railtrack  v  Smallworld [2001] ICR 714; and to
determine the risk at the relevant time of the inspection on 3
December 2015, when the Prohibition Notice was issued.

The tribunal was satisfied that the inspectors' evidence regarding
the absence of power to the DCU at the time of inspection was
correct, and having due regard to the expertise of the inspectors,
it concluded that it would have reached the same decision and
issued a Prohibition Notice, when faced with a similar situation.

According to the statutory provisions, the DCU is required to be
fully operational before any other work begins, which includes
clearance by a UKAS accredited analyst.

Given the absence of power, that there was a reasonably
foreseeable risk of exposure to asbestos to those on the site,
given the well-known dangers and serious consequences of health of
any exposure of asbestos.

In the situation as found by the inspectors -- with no power to
the DCU; with the analyst due to arrive to carry out the relevant
four stage clearance; and three employees working in the vicinity
of the enclosure -- the tribunal was satisfied there was a risk of
serious personal injury.

Hindsight Evidence

Employees of Cullen Asbestos attempted to suggest there had been,
at the time of the inspection, an alternative power supply for the
DCU from the mains power supply at the farmhouse; but this was not
what the inspectors saw at the time of their inspection or indeed
were told to them by Mr Adams at the time of the inspection.

Given the fact Mr Adams did not make any mention of this
alternative power source for the DCU, the inspectors could not
have known or being expected to know of it.

The tribunal concluded that the subsequent evidence given at the
hearing by aforementioned employees was what, 'with hindsight',
should have been done rather than what was actually the position
at the time of the inspection.

Following Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd [2009] EWHC 2086 and HM
Inspector of Health & Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2016] CSIH
29, 'hindsight evidence' cannot be taken into account in assessing
the relevant risk and the tribunal therefore did not do so.

The Prohibition Notice, dated 3 December 2015, issued by HSENI,
was therefore affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Won't Be Fined for Firefighter Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the City of
Orlando and Orlando Fire Department officials will not face any
fines after firefighters were exposed to asbestos during a
training exercise in February.

Investigators met with Orange County Environmental Protection
Division (EPD) officials and decided not to impose any penalties,
which could have amounted to $25,000 for each violation.

Instead, fire department officials will initiate an asbestos
training program they expect to implement by November.

"The EPD Air Quality Management Section has asked for this
training as a Supplemental Environmental Project, in lieu of
paying the assessed civil penalty," EPD supervisor Renee Parker
told Asbestos.com in an email statement.

WFTV-Channel 9 reported a total of 42 area companies paid asbestos
exposure violation fines ranging from $650 to $90,000, the news
agency reported.

Deputy Fire Chief Gerald Lane said the incident was a "learning
experience" that "has improved the communication between the fire
department and the EPD office and helped us understand our
obligations."

Officials Create Mandatory Asbestos Training Class

Officials with both departments met to clarify guidelines and
requirements to develop a mandatory asbestos awareness class for
all fire department staff. The training includes asbestos
notification and removal requirements as well as regulations
surrounding burn training.

"The master draft is finished and waiting for the EPD approval,"
Lane said.

Parker added: "The asbestos training session the fire department
will be conducting will help EPD with fulfilling our mission
statement, 'Serving our community by protecting the environment
through education, participation and conservation.'"

Lane called the class a "win-win for everybody involved" and said
the course will serve as a model and be shared with other Central
Florida agencies.

Firefighters Removed Asbestos Floor Tiles Without Protection

Last winter, more than a dozen Orlando firefighters prepared an
abandoned apartment building for a training exercise.

"We were scraping on our hands and knees," said firefighter
Anthony Donohoe, who explained they were removing old asbestos
floor tiles from some of the rooms without wearing protective
suits or respirators required by law.

Supervisors told the firefighters to remove the tiles despite a
pre-demolition survey obtained by the fire department from a Tampa
company that identified asbestos in the building.

One of the firefighters involved in the cleanup recognized the
danger and called WFTV reporters.

In response to the firefighter's claims, the city secured the
site, submitted an asbestos survey of the property and filed a
notice of Demolition or Asbestos Renovation reporting form to the
EPD, Parker said.

City officials hired an abatement contractor to properly remove
the asbestos-tainted materials, reports show.

Asbestos Fibers Cannot Be Disturbed

When cracked, scraped or broken, asbestos floor tiles release
thousands of lethal microscopic fibers into the air. If inhaled,
these fibers permanently lodge in lung tissue.

In some cases, cancerous tumors can develop around the fibers.
Symptoms emerge 10-50 years after exposure.

Mesothelioma ranks as one of the deadliest cancers with an average
fatality rate of one year after initial diagnosis.

Firefighters Face a High Risk of Asbestos Exposure

Because firefighters often enter older buildings containing
damaged asbestos, they face a higher risk of exposure and
developing mesothelioma.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
conducted a study between 1987 and 2003 that showed a strong
association between firefighting and asbestos-related cancers such
as mesothelioma, kidney cancer, bladder cancer and leukemia.

While Lane looks forward to the department's improved preparedness
for asbestos incidents, he said it won't clear the department's
culpability for those already exposed.

"Unfortunately, it does not provide a shield for the Orlando Fire
Department for any potential litigation given the asbestos-related
illnesses that some firefighter may have suffered," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More WorkSafe Violations for B.C. Contractor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Saltman, writing for Vancouver Sun, reported that a Lower
Mainland asbestos-removal contractor said he plans to continue
fighting the almost $280,000 in penalties he has been ordered to
pay after being found in contravention of health and safety rules.

The fines, which were imposed on Seattle Environmental Consulting
Ltd. in December and are related to incidents that took place from
2013 to 2015, were upheld last month by WorkSafe B.C.'s review
division.

Seattle Environmental's owner, Manoj (Mike) Singh said he's
planning to appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal,
and will take the issue to court for a judicial review if
necessary.

"The game's not over yet," said Singh. "They want to close me down
for something that I have not done. All these fines are based on
exposure (to asbestos), and to date there's no exposure."

According to the WorkSafe B.C. penalties database, the fines were
assessed on Dec. 4 and 7 and related to work done at sites in
Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and North
Vancouver where the firm was conducting hazardous materials
surveys, removing asbestos-containing materials from houses or
issuing clearance letters. The violations are described as
"repeated" and "high risk."

Al Johnson, vice-president of prevention services at WorkSafe
B.C., called Seattle Environmental unusual, in that when faced
with escalating fines and increased enforcement, the vast majority
of employers comply with orders and pay their fines. He said Singh
has done neither.

"For whatever reason, I would say this employer is an exception to
us," Johnson said. "We're not overly pleased with his company's
actions and how they carry on business."

That's why WorkSafe has added Singh's company to a "focus list"
and inspectors go out of their way to find Seattle Environmental's
work sites and conduct inspections.

Singh maintains that his sites are safe and he is following all of
the rules and regulations. He claims that he is the subject of
racial discrimination because he is South Asian, and has filed a
lawsuit to that effect. Johnson called the allegation "absolutely
false."

Singh has a long history with WorkSafe B.C. Seattle Environmental
Consulting Ltd. was fined $75,000 in 2013 for violations.

A company where Singh was previously the manager and his son was
an employee -- Skylite Building Maintenance Ltd. -- was issued
more than 200 violations between 2007 and 2012 and assessed
hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties.

In February, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled the men were not in
contempt of court for violating a 2012 court order. WorkSafe B.C.
appealed the decision, and Singh has filed a cross-appeal to have
the 2012 order nullified and his costs covered.

He has also filed a half dozen lawsuits against WorkSafe B.C., the
most recent of which accuses the organization, its lawyers and its
board of malicious prosecution.

"They say I'm litigious, but if you're going to prosecute me for
something that's not true, that's my right," Singh said.

In a news release, the B.C. Insulators Union said it was
"appalled" at the latest fines and called on the province to
introduce mandatory licensing of asbestos removal and testing
firms so that rule violators can have their operating licence
suspended when breaches occur.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Says Tyler Pipe Trust Not Paying Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Skylar Gallop, writing for KLTV.com, reported that a 16-year-old
asbestos exposure settlement against Tyler Pipe is now the focus
of a federal lawsuit. Plaintiffs say the trust charged with paying
out the settlement, is not paying up.

In 2000, the parent company of Tyler Pipe, Swan Transportation,
lost two multi-million dollar lawsuits and still faced hundreds of
other unresolved claims over the exposure of asbestos and silica
by their workers.

Tyler resident Larry Martin says he, too, was exposed, "I had
worked at the plant for 41 years... I got exposed to it to, just
like a lot of these other people, they got exposed, too."

In the fallout of the suits, Swan filed for bankruptcy and a trust
was created to pay current and future claims.

Martin says that includes him, "We are concerned about getting our
funds out of this trust."

This summer, a federal suit was filed by a group of other former
Tyler Pipe workers, alleging the money in that trust is being
misused.

Martin says, "It don't [belongs] to them. It belongs to the people
who've been sick and exposed."

Martin says they should pay up, before it is too late, "[A] dead
person can't spend [any] money. These people want they money while
they living... They can't take it with them. Whatever they do have
coming to them, they can't take it with them."

He says the severity of affect varied among his former coworkers,
"Some people went to the third stage and second stage, first
stage. The ones that went to the fifth stage, they deceased. a lot
of them deceased."

Asbestos was not the only problem Martin says he witnessed while
punching the clock at Tyler Pipe, "You can write a book about
what's happened in the last 40 years out there... A lot of people
got hurt, a lot of people got injured, a lot of people got
killed... I've seen it all at that plant."

We reached out to attorneys of all parties involved in this latest
federal suit. They either didn't call back or declined comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children in Tongan Hospital Inhaling Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
RadioNZ.com reported that several patients at the paediatric ward
of a hospital in Tonga's Vava'u islands are suffering from health
issues due to the inhalation of asbestos.

Radio Tonga reports the toxic chemical is contained within roofing
materials of the Prince Wellington Ngu hospital.

Chief Medical Superintendent John Lee Taione said there is
evidence that several children are being affected, because of
exposure to asbestos from the leaking roof after heavy rain.

Dr Taione said asbestos can cause lung cancer.

Government spokesman Paula Ma'u said a New Zealand company will be
in Tonga next month to remove all asbestos from the hospital.

Dr Taione said the removal of the roof will have to be conducted
one room at a time as there is no place for patients to be
evacuated to.

He said if people need medical treatment, staff may have to
conduct treatment in patients' homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Case Ruling Could Have Ripple Effect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com -- and Luke J.
Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinnelli, in an
article for The National Law Review, wrote that companies facing
"take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in
Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have
a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20
Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Quiroz v. Alcoa, Inc.,
Arizona recently joined the list of states that have refused to
allow claims for "take-home" asbestos exposures.

In the ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's
ruling granting a defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in a
case in which plaintiffs alleged their decedent contracted
mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos via his father's
work at defendant's factory. Plaintiffs claimed decedent's father
brought asbestos dust home on his clothing after working with
asbestos-containing products at defendant's factory and that this
"take-home" exposure caused decedent's mesothelioma.

In a case of first impression in Arizona, the Court found that a
premises owner owes no duty to the child of an employee in such
"take-home" asbestos exposure cases.

In considering the issue, the Court distinguished Arizona law from
other states, in that Arizona does not consider foreseeability of
injury in determining whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty
of care. The Court likewise declined to apply the Restatement
(Second and Third) of Torts, Sections 371 and 54 respectively,
finding that such application would "substantially change
Arizona's long-standing conceptual approach to negligence law by
effectively eliminating duty as one of the require elements of a
negligence claim . . . "  Id. at 5..

The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that finding no duty
in "take-home" cases would violate public policy considerations.
In doing so, the Court expressed concern over the potential for
limitless liability for defendants, stating:

We share this concern because, as noted above, Appellants offer no
way to limit the duty they seek either to employees' family
members or to asbestos exposure. Absent these constraints, any
company that made or used a potentially hazardous substance could
be liable to anyone who ever came into contact with an employee
who arguably could have carried said hazardous substance off-site.
Such a dramatic expansion of liability would not be compatible
with public policy.  Id. at 13-14 (internal citations omitted).

While Quiroz addressed "take-home" exposure with respect to a
premises owner and is silent as to claims against product
manufacturers, the Court's reasoning finding no duty exists should
arguably apply to both types of defendants.

Other state courts have likewise indicated, to varying degrees,
that no duty to warn exists for "take-home" exposures. This
majority trend includes decisions from Georgia, New York,
Michigan, Texas, Maryland, Iowa, Ohio and Delaware. California
appellate courts are split, though the California Supreme Court is
expected to rule on the issue soon. An Illinois appellate court
has ruled that an employer owed no duty to warn of "take-home"
exposures before 1964, when the first study on the issue was
published. See Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, et al., 55 N.E.2d 1173
(Ill.App. 4th 2011).



                            *********

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  * * *