CAR_Public/161104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 221




                            Headlines

ADEPTUS HEALTH: Oklahoma Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
ALASKA AIRLINES: Class Action Challenges Virgin America Merger
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Huddleston" Suit on Dec. 14
AMERICAN MUSSEL: Certification of Class Sought in "Belmore" Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Roberts Files Another Appeal From N.D. Cal. Ruling

AUSTRALIA: Hundreds of Drivers to Join Peninsula Link Fines Case
BANK OF NEW YORK: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Becker" Suit Decision
BESINS HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss AndroGel MDL in Illinois
BIOGEN INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
BMO HARRIS: Counsel Sanctioned for Not Disclosing Loan Copy

BRITISH COLUMBIA: SCC Allows Extraprovincial Class Suit Hearings
CALIBER HOME: Must Defend Against "Carbone" FDCPA Suit
COAST CAPITAL: Credit Union Appeals Class-Action Certification
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Seeks Review of Order in "Curtis" Class Suit
CROSCILL HOME: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Russell" Class Suit

DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL: McKinstry Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
DOLLAR TREE: Nov. 21 Hearing on Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses
ENCLARITY INC: Matthew Fulton Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Shaw Seeks Review of S.D. Cal. Decision
EXXON MOBIL: Wants to Halt New York AG's Fossil Fuels Probe

FACEBOOK: Faces Advertisers' Class Suit in N.D. California
FOUGERA PHARMA: Plumbers' Fund Sues Over Drug Price-Fixing
FRED ALGER: Ott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
GOOGLE INC: Age Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Groshek Appeals W.D. Wisc. Ruling to 7th Cir.

GULFSTREAM PARK: "Phuong" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Judge Hears Arguments in Accutane Appeal
HOUSEHOLD LIFE: Wilt Appeals From S.D. W.Va. Ruling to 4th Cir.
HUMANA INC: Appeals Order Granting Class Cert. in "Kinkead" Suit
IDAHO: Medicaid Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay

ILLINOIS, USA: Seeks Certification of "Morales" Settlement Class
INTERCEPT CORP: DC Ruling Won't Predict Dakota Case Outcome
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: 1st Circuit Appeal Filed in "Depianti" Suit
KIIP INC: Faces Class Action Over Runkeeper User Data Collection
LANDSCAPE RESOURCES: "Quevedo" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

LENDUP: Beefs Up Legal Department Following Customer Fee Suits
LINKEDIN: Settles "Add Connections" Class Action for $13-Mil.
MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Customer Complaints Over Massage Contract
NATIONAL UNION: Gonzales Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Beechum Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.

NEW JERSEY TAX SALES: $9,585,000 Settlement Has Final Court OK
NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Acosta" Class Suit
NEW YORK, USA: Rold Appeals Order in Barcia v. Insurance Board
NEWBY ISLAND: San Jose Planning Commission Review Odor Report
NOVARTIS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Face Pay Equity Suit Challenges

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Jimenez" Suit
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Settles Investors' Car Wash Scandal Suits
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Law Firm Expands Class Period
POWER HOME: Settles Class Action Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
RL REPPERT: Askew Appeals From E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit

RHYTHM 'N BALLOON: Several Unpaid Vendors Mull Class Action
SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Galvan" Suit
SCALLY'S LUBE: "Pascual" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
SLATER & GORDON: Chairman Steps Down From Super Retail Board
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Faces Class Action Over Collection Suits

SCHMIDT BAKING: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Schilling" Class Suit
SLATER & GORDON: Chairman Steps Down From Super Retail Board
STARBUCKS CORP: Vondersaar Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
STEEL & TUBE: More Than 100 Homeowners Join Class Action
STS CONSULTING: Lopez Seeks Certification of Inspectors Class

SYNGENTA: Appeals Ruling in Corn Farmers' Viptura Class Action
T-MOBILE: Agrees to Pay $48MM to Resolve "Unlimited Plan" Claims
TIME WARNER: Merger Disclosure Includes Forum Selection Clause
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want Campaign Statements Excluded
UBS FINANCIAL: Roman Appeals D. P.R. Decision to First Circuit

UNION PACIFIC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Serrano" Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Defend Handling of Case
UNITED STATES: Veterans File Class Action Over Bonus Recoupment
UTGR INC: Munsif Seeks to Certify Class of Floor Supervisors
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Compensation Sought for EU Dieselgate Victims

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Final Approval of Emissions Settlement
WEST VIRGINIA: Medicaid Program Case Obtains Class-Action Status
WEST VIRGINIA: Jury Selection Begins in Chemical Spill Case
WYNYARD GROUP: In Administration, Shareholders Mull Class Action
XEROX CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action

YAHOO! INC: Verizon GC Assesses Material Impact of Data Breach

* Big Tobacco Mulls Comeback as U.S. Litigation Threat Eases
* Businesses Need to Manage Customer Privacy Risk Amid Suits
* DOL Fiduciary Rule May Spark Litigation Against Financial Firms
* Federal Courts Split on Class Action Rights Waiver Issue
* Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Restrict Rights of ISP Customers

* Professional Services Firms Face Pay Equity Litigation Threats
* Thailand Allows Class Action Litigation for First Time


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Floyd"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bristol" Remanded to Missouri State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Show Cause Order in "Ballard"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: L.A. Jury Awards $18MM Talc Mesothelioma Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Workers Urged to Speak Up on Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School Dist. Broke Asbestos Rules Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Bayswater Confirms Asbestos Presence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton Pub Owners Fined Over Asbestos Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $80MM Averts Asbestos Trial in Jackson County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Five Best Asbestos Attorneys in Illinois

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Taskforce Probing New Mr. Fluffy House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Rejects Take-Home Asbestos Claims


                            *********


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Oklahoma Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adeptus
Health Inc., Thomas S. Hall, Timothy L. Fielding, Richard Covert,
Daniel W. Rosenberg, Gregory W. Scott, Ronald L. Taylor, Jeffery
S. Vender, Steven V. Napolitano, Stephen M. Mengert, Sterling
Partners, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated, Case No. 6:15-cv-1243 (E.D. Tex., October 27,
2016), seeks damages with interest, rescinding of the secondary
public offering, costs and expenses of this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Adeptus Health owns and operates a network of independent
freestanding emergency rooms in the United States. The Company
maintains its principal executive offices in Lewisville, Texas.

Adeptus Health completed a secondary public stock offering (SPO)
in May 2015 of 1.6 million common shares.

Adeptus Health receives payment for its services from its patients
and insurance companies. Its affiliate, First Choice, has been
accused of predatory overbilling and subjected it to numerous
undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks
resulting in civil or criminal sanctions under federal and state
healthcare laws. Adeptus Health common shares trade at $31.55 per
share, approximately 70% below the SPO price of $105 per share
after this news broke out.

Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System purchased such SPO.

Thomas S. Hall, Timothy L. Fielding, Richard Covert, Daniel W.
Rosenberg, Gregory W. Scott, Ronald L. Taylor, Jeffery S. Vender,
Steven V. Napolitano, Stephen M. Mengert served as Board of
Directors while Sterling Partners, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated were its
underwriter for the SPO.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Samuel H. Rudman, 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
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      T. John Ward, Jr., Esq.
      Claire Abernathy Henry, Esq.
      Andrea L. Fair, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      PO Box 1231
      Longview, TX 75606-1231
      Telephone: (903) 757-6400
      Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
      Email: jw@wsfirm.com
             claire@wsfirm.com
             andrea@wsfirm.com


ALASKA AIRLINES: Class Action Challenges Virgin America Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that it was
just recently that Alaska Airlines said it was on course to win
Justice Department approval of its takeover of Virgin America, but
a class action lawsuit could create some unexpected turbulence.

The suit, filed on behalf of 41 fliers and travel agents, argues
that the deal would lessen airline competition, causing fares and
fees to gain altitude quickly.

San Francisco U.S. District Judge William Alsup has taken the
plaintiffs' motion for an injunction under advisement and said he
plans to hold a trial on the merger as soon as the Justice
Department makes its decision.  Judge Alsup ordered Alaska to give
the court at least seven days' notice before it closes the
transaction.

In a statement on Oct. 21, both Alaska and Virgin America said
they will defend their deal.  They said that a combined
Alaska-Virgin would control only 6% of U.S. market share, while
American, Delta, United, and Southwest control the remaining 84%.

Divestitures possible

Analysts thought it unlikely Judge Alsup would block the deal
entirely. It's more likely he would order some divestitures to
make the post-merger atmosphere more competitive.

Such divestitures could include some routes that have become less
competitive or gates at choice airports.  Some code-sharing deals
might also have to be unwound.

San Francisco attorney Joseph Alioto, representing the lead
plaintiff, has brought several antitrust cases against airlines.
"This is an excellent result so far," he said of the judge's
orders, according to the Wall Street Journal.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Huddleston" Suit on Dec. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 24, 2016, in the case
entitled Lucas Huddleston v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-09100 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Agreed Motion to continue is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's Motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to the next status hearing;

   -- The motion presentment date of October 26, 2016, was
      stricken;

   -- Status hearing is set for December 14, 2016, remains firm.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hz2akKPL


AMERICAN MUSSEL: Certification of Class Sought in "Belmore" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ROBERT G. BELMORE individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. AMERICAN
MUSSEL HARVESTERS, INC., alias, WILLIAM SILKES, alias, JANE L.
BUGBEE, alias, GREGORY A. SILKES, alias, Case No. 1:15-cv-00479-M-
PAS (D.R.I.), moves to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action of all individuals employed as
Production Workers (or other comparable positions), who were
employed by the Defendants and were subject to these common
practices or policies of the Defendants, at any time from three
years before the filing of the complaint to the present:

   (a) Who were paid IRS Form W-2 compensation; and

   (b) Who worked more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, and,

   (c) Were not paid at least one and one-half times their
       regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
       in a workweek; and/or

   (d) Were not paid the legally mandated minimum wage for all
       hours worked.

Robert G. Belmore also asks the Court for authority for his
counsel to mail or e-mail in both English and Spanish a Notice of
Pendency of Lawsuit and Plaintiff Consent to Sue Form to all
putative class members; to post the English and Spanish Notice and
Consent forms on the Counsel firm's Web site or a Web site created
specifically for the purpose of putting prospective class members
on notice of the action and providing the option to execute opt-in
consent forms electronically on-line; and to send follow up post
cards or e-mails to any class members, who have not responded
within 30 days after the mailing or e-mailing of the initial
notice.

Mr. Belmore further moves that the Defendants be ordered to post
the English and Spanish Notice and Consent forms in conspicuous
locations in all Defendant Corporation's worksites, and to provide
his counsel with the names and last known addresses, e-mail
addresses, and telephone numbers of all putative class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FpBv1MZL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph D. Whelan, Esq.
          Meghan E. Siket, Esq.
          WHELAN, CORRENTE, KINDER & SIKET LLP
          100 Westminster Street, Suite 710
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 270-2758
          E-mail: Jwhelan@wckslaw.com
                  Msiket@wckslaw.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Roberts Files Another Appeal From N.D. Cal. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ashley M. Chewey, Kenneth A. Chewey, James Krenn and
Marcus A. Roberts filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to
their lawsuit entitled Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03418-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcus Roberts, et al. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, Case No. 16-16915, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs previously filed a Ninth Circuit appeal from a court
ruling in the Case.  Prior to that appeal, the Court ordered
private arbitration of the class action claims that AT&T does not
adequately disclose throttling of mobile customers with unlimited
data plans.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 21, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 19, 2016;

   -- Appellants Ashley M. Chewey, Kenneth A. Chewey, James Krenn
      and Marcus A. Roberts' opening brief is due on January 30,
      2017;

   -- Appellee AT&T Mobility LLC's answering brief is due on
      March 2, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARCUS A. ROBERTS, KENNETH A. CHEWEY, ASHLEY
M. CHEWEY and JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS LAW
          935 Cowper Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 284-8495
          E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
                  msobol@lchb.com
                  nsugnet@lchb.com

               - and -

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 North Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Appellee AT&T MOBILITY LLC is represented by:

          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2030
          Facsimile: (650) 331-4530
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3328
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5328
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  kranlett@mayerbrown.com


AUSTRALIA: Hundreds of Drivers to Join Peninsula Link Fines Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Harding, writing for Mornington Peninsula Leader, reports
that hundreds of drivers have joined a group keen to launch a
class action over what they think are dodgy Peninsula Link
speeding fines.

Almost 500 peeved motorists contacted the group after Leader broke
the news of the planned action against the State Government, which
arose after people noted they had all received fines for doing an
alleged speed of 108km/h.

Many claimed they always used cruise control to ensure they did
not speed -- but were still nabbed by the point-to-point cameras.

Posts flooded on to the site after the report, with one man
claiming he had received 10 fines in five days.

A separate group has now been started specifically for those
concerned about the 108km/h allegations.

"Due to the overwhelming response and popularity of this matter we
have had to start another group due to the privacy of those
wanting to join the class action," said organiser Jacqueline
Smith.

Road Safety Camera Commissioner John Voyage contacted Leader to
advise concerned readers to contact his office.

"I would like to work with the Peninsula 108 group to get to
bottom of the problem, or perceived problem," he said.

"I am strongly of the view that the cameras play an important part
in road safety but if there is any suggestion of inaccuracy or
unfairness then I want to investigate that thoroughly.

"My meetings with the authorities leave me absolutely certain that
no one wants any inappropriate infringement notices to be
distributed, and the public has every right to expect fair
operation of the cameras."

Mrs. Smith, from Pearcedale, who drives to and from Rosebud every
day, appealed her fines after realising many other drivers were in
the same boat.

"I'm all for speed cameras -- they protect lives and people slow
down," she said.

However, she was confident she had not exceeded the speed limit.

Posts flooded on to the site after the report, with one man
claiming he had received 10 fines in five days.

A separate group has now been started specifically for those
concerned about the 108km/h allegations.

"Due to the overwhelming response and popularity of this matter we
have had to start another group due to the privacy of those
wanting to join the class action," said organiser Jacqueline
Smith.

Road Safety Camera Commissioner John Voyage contacted Leader to
advise concerned readers to contact his office.

"I would like to work with the Peninsula 108 group to get to
bottom of the problem, or perceived problem," he said.

"I am strongly of the view that the cameras play an important part
in road safety but if there is any suggestion of inaccuracy or
unfairness then I want to investigate that thoroughly.

"My meetings with the authorities leave me absolutely certain that
no one wants any inappropriate infringement notices to be
distributed, and the public has every right to expect fair
operation of the cameras."

Mrs. Smith, from Pearcedale, who drives to and from Rosebud every
day, appealed her fines after realising many other drivers were in
the same boat.

"I'm all for speed cameras -- they protect lives and people slow
down," she said.

However, she was confident she had not exceeded the speed limit.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Becker" Suit Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., NA, and JP Morgan
Trust Co., NA, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled LEONARD BECKER, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. and J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 11-6460, consolidated with Case No. 12-6412, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 20,
2016, the Hon. Legrome D. Davis entered a memorandum in the
lawsuit stating that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification will be granted.

In the consolidated litigation, Plaintiff Leonard Becker moved to
certify a class comprising holders of revenue bonds, who are
entitled to a distribution under the Plan for reorganization of
the bond debtor, Lower Bucks Hospital, which Plan was confirmed
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Becker v. Bank of New
York Mellon Trust Co NA, et al., Case No. 16-8069, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent LEONARD BECKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  lport@barrack.com

Defendants-Petitioners THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY,
N.A., and J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, are
represented by:

          Christine Cesare, Esq.
          Thomas J. Schell, Esq.
          Stephanie Wickouski, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1290 6th Ave.
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-1228
          E-mail: cbcesare@bryancave.com
                  tjschell@bryancave.com
                  stephanie.wickouski@bryancave.com

               - and -

          John C. Goodchild, III, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5020
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: john.goodchild@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
          Bryan M. Killian, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2020 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 739-5893
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com
                  bryan.killian@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.
          Patrick T. Ryan, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
          123 South Broad Street
          Avenue of the Arts
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-7354
          Facsimile: (215) 772-7620
          E-mail: nramsey@mmwr.com
                  pryan@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Howard M. Rogantnick, Esq.
          FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU
          866 UN Plaza
          First Avenue & 48th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 541-1296


BESINS HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Dismiss AndroGel MDL in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
has rejected a Belgian drugmaker's attempts to duck out of the
federal multidistrict litigation stemming from claims that
testosterone replacement therapies it manufactured led to strokes
and heart attacks.

The company, Besins Healthcare SA, sought dismissal from the MDL
focused on AndroGel and other testosterone replacement therapies,
but U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Northern
District of Illinois ruled the plaintiffs had provided sufficient
evidence to keep the company in the case.

The ruling on Oct. 10 in In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy
Products Liability Litigation, held that, although the company
manufactured AndroGel in France and did not market or sell the
drug in the United States, the volume of sale of their product in
America was sufficient to overcome the company's jurisdictional
challenge.

"Besins itself has received over $600 million in AndroGel royalty
payments from sales in the United States.  Such a high volume of
sales over many years is a far cry from the 'isolated sale' at
issue in [J. McIntyre Machinery v.] Nicastro," Judge Kennelly
said.

According to court statistics, more than 6,000 actions were
pending in the MDL as of Sept. 15.  Besins is one of numerous
defendants facing claims that the drugs, which are also called
"low T" drugs, led to heart attack and embolism.

The company had sought to dismiss all claims against it for lack
of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have the minimum
contacts with any U.S. forum.

Judge Kennelly said several tests have been proposed for
establishing jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, and,
although some of those methods conflicted, he said the decision in
Nicastro and precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit left open the possibility that a foreign drugmaker
that placed its products in the stream of commerce in the United
States could be subject to the jurisdiction if the product
allegedly caused injuries and there is a regular flow of those
products into the states.

Judge Kennelly noted that Besins did not have state-specific sales
data, but he said the high volume of national sales created a
strong inference that the drugs were sold in each of the forum
states.

"From these figures, as well as from plaintiffs' evidence that
Besins employees received regular updates on the United States
market and sales of AndroGel, the court can reasonably infer that
Besins knew that a regular and significant flow of the AndroGel it
manufactured would end up in each of the forum states," Judge
Kennelly said.  "Such an inference is sufficient to support
plaintiffs' prima facie case for jurisdiction in this case."

Jeffrey Soble -- jsoble@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner, who
represents Besins, declined to comment.  Lawyers from the
plaintiffs' steering committee, including Ronald Johnson --
rjohnson@pschachter.com -- of Schachter, Hendy & Johnson and Trent
Miracle of Simmons Hanly Conroy, did not return a call for
comment.


BIOGEN INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Oct. 24 disclosed that on October 20,
2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its
client Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 103") against Biogen
Inc. (Nasdaq:BIIB), and certain of its senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is captioned
Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, IBEW v. Kingsley, No.
16-cv-12101 (D. Mass.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Biogen during the period from July 23, 2014 through July 23, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Biogen is a global biopharmaceutical company that develops and
markets treatments for certain neurological, autoimmune, and
hematological diseases.  The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act
by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the safety
profile and growth prospects of Tecfidera, an immunosuppressant
that is prescribed to treat multiple sclerosis ("MS") and Biogen's
main driver of revenues during the Class Period.  Specifically,
the action alleges that Biogen publicly touted Tecfidera's
attractive safety profile and solid growth trajectory but was
aware that Tecfidera was weakening the immune system for MS
patients taking the drug causing physicians to discontinue
prescriptions of Tecfidera.

The true state of Biogen's false statements came to light through
a series of partial disclosures beginning in late October 2014.
Specifically, on October 22, 2014, Biogen was forced to partially
disclose the safety risks of Tecfidera when the Company announced
the death of a patient linked to Tecfidera.  On April 24, 2015,
the Company disclosed that the patient death announced in October
2014 was causing Tecfidera sales to grow "at an overall slower
rate" but the long term outlook "remain[ed] strong."  Finally, on
July 24, 2015, the Company abruptly cut its revenue guidance in
half, "based largely on revised expectations for the growth of
Tecfidera" -- which it blamed on safety concerns following the
patient death.  On this news, Biogen's common stock plummeted from
$385.05 per share at the market close on July 23, 2015 to $300.03
per share at the market close on July 24, 2015, a decline of more
than 22%.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
Biogen during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts no later than
December 23, 2016.  The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class.  You do not need
to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class
recovery in this action.  If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an
absent Class member.  You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com.  You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Biogen-II-
Securities-Litigation.cfm

Local 103 is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


BMO HARRIS: Counsel Sanctioned for Not Disclosing Loan Copy
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMES DILLON, Plaintiff, v. BMO HARRIS
BANK, N.A., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:13-CV-897 (M.D.N.C.),
District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted
Generations Community Federal Credit Union's motion to sanction
plaintiff's counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and the
Court's inherent authority.

The case is a civil RICO lawsuit arising out of online loans the
plaintiff, James Dillon, received at allegedly predatory interest
rates. According to the complaint, Mr. Dillon borrowed money at
usurious rates from several online lenders between December 2012
and May 2013. He consulted counsel about these allegedly predatory
loans and filed the lawsuit in October 2013 against non-lender
banks involved in transferring the loaned amounts into, and
repayments out of, Mr. Dillon's bank account. He hired the
services of:

     -- Mr. John Austin Moore, Mr. Steve Six, and Mr. Norman E.
        Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP;

     -- Mr. Darren T. Kaplan of  Darren Kaplan Law Firm, P.C.;

     -- Mr. Jeffrey M. Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.;

     -- Mr. Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Mr. Zavareei of Tycko &
        Zavareei LLP; and

     -- Mr. F. Hill Allen, IV of Tharrington Smith, L.L.P.

One of the defendants, Generations Community Federal Credit Union,
moved to dismiss based on an arbitration provision in a document
that it proffered as the loan agreement between Mr. Dillon and one
of the lenders -- the "Generations Copy." The Generations Copy
appeared to be a written contract memorializing a loan agreement
between Mr. Dillon and Western Sky Financial, the lender whose
banking transactions Generations had handled.

Mr. Dillon's attorneys (Counsel) objected to the Court's
consideration of the Generations Copy, contending among other
things that there was no evidence the Generations Copy was an
authentic copy of the loan agreement. During oral argument on the
motion to dismiss, plaintiff's attorney Steve Six made statements
implying and leading the Court to believe that Mr. Dillon did not
have a copy of any loan agreement.

On Mr. Dillon's deposition during discovery on the renewed motion
to dismissal, he testified that he had a copy of the same document
in his possession, printed at the same time he borrowed the money
and provided his copy to his lawyers before they filed suit.

On January 12, 2016, Generations filed the motion for sanctions
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 and the Court's inherent authority,
seeking combined attorney's fees and costs of $153,362.54.
Generations contended that Counsel acted in bad faith by
challenging the Generations Copy despite their possession of the
identical Dillon Copy.

In opposition to the motion for sanctions, Mr. Dillon requested
his own attorney's fees and costs in defending the motion for
sanctions. Counsel contend they acted in good faith when they
objected to authenticity, that they had no duty to disclose the
Dillon Copy, and that they did not intend to mislead the Court and
that they did not know or believe that Mr. Dillon printed his copy
when he borrowed the money and because they had good reasons to be
suspicious of a document printed from a Delbert Services website.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2016
available at https://is.gd/epRXff from Leagle.com, Judge Eagles
found that Counsel to Dillon acted in bad faith and vexatiously
violated the duty of candor that Counsel owed to the Court and
imposed sanctions in the form of attorney's fees appropriate and
sufficient. Generations and the sanctioned lawyers shall confer
about the amount of attorney's fees and report jointly on that
amount or, if they disagree about the amount, brief that issue in
accordance with the Order.

The Court concluded that only Mr. Kaplan and his law firm and Mr.
Moore, Mr. Six, and their law firm should be sanctioned. Mr. Moore
had the contact with Mr. Dillon and Mr. Six made the misleading
argument and none of these three lawyers made the Dillon Copy
available before the deposition or during the deposition when its
existence was finally uncovered.

James Dillon is represented by Darren T. Kaplan, Esq. --
dkaplan@darrenkaplanlaw.com -- DARREN KAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.C. -- F.
Hill Allen,IV, Esq. -- hallen@tsmithlaw.com -- THARRINGTON SMITH -
- Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- and Jeffrey
D. Kaliel, Esq. -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP;
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ
OSTROW P.A. -- John Austin Moore, Esq. -- moore@stuevesiegel.com -
- Norman E. Siegel, Esq. -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- and Steve
Six, Esq. -- six@stuevesielgel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

Bmo Harris Bank, N.A. is represented by Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. --
dernst@mayerbrown.com -- Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq. --
kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- Lucia Nale, Esq. --
lnale@mayerbrown.com -- and Matthew C. Sostrin, Esq. --
msostrin@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN, LLP

Four Oaks Bank & Trust is represented By Carl N. Patterson, Jr.,
Esq. -- cpatterson@smithlaw.com -- Clifton Lennis Brinson, Esq.
-- cbrinson@smithlaw.com -- and Isaac Augustin Linnartz, Esq. --
ilinnartz@smithlaw.com  -- SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL
& JERNIGAN, L.L.P

Generations Federal Credit Union is represented by Reid Calwell
Adams, Jr., Esq. -- cadams@wcsr.com -- and -- Jonathan Reid Reich,
Esq. -- jreich@wcsr.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE -- Eric A. Pullen, Esq.
-- epullen@pulmanlaw.com -- Etan Tepperman, Esq. -- and -- Leslie
S. Hyman, Esq. -- lhyman@pulman.com -- PULMAN, CAPPUCCIO, PULLEN,
BENSON & JONES, LLP; Garth A. Gersten, Esq. --
garth@gerstenlawfirm.com -- KNOTT & BOYLE, PLLC,  SANDRIDGE &
RICE, PLLC

Bay Cities Bank is represented by Mark Vasco, Esq. --
mark.vasco@bryancave.com -- Ann W. Ferebee, Esq. --
ann.ferebee@bryancave.com -- Eric Rieder, Esq. --
eric.rieder@bryancave.com -- and Michael P. Carey, Esq. --
michael.carey@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP


BRITISH COLUMBIA: SCC Allows Extraprovincial Class Suit Hearings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP reports that on October 20, 2016, the
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that a provincial superior
court judge may sit outside his or her home province to hear
motions without live evidence in national class actions
proceedings in certain circumstances.  In Endean v. British
Columbia (Endean), the SCC also indicated that superior court
judges must consider a variety of factors in determining whether
to exercise their discretion to sit in an extraprovincial hearing,
including the cost and convenience of the hearing, the effect on
access to justice and whether it will be seen to impinge on the
sovereignty of the jurisdiction where it will be held.

BACKGROUND

The Endean case stems from a C$1.1-billion settlement of six class
actions commenced in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, which
were brought on behalf of individuals infected with Hepatitis C by
the Canadian blood supply between 1986 and 1990. The B.C. and
Quebec actions concerned residents of those provinces, whereas the
Ontario action concerned residents of all provinces and
territories except B.C. and Quebec.

The pan-Canadian settlement agreement reached amongst all parties
to the actions, which included the Government of Canada and all of
the provinces and territories, assigned a supervisory role to the
superior courts in B.C., Ontario and Quebec.  The supervisory
courts were given the power to make orders for the implementation
and enforcement of the settlement agreement.  However, an order
would only take effect once all three courts issued materially
identical orders.  All provinces and territories other than B.C.
and Quebec attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts.

The SCC's decision in Endean arose following motions for
directions heard in the B.C., Ontario and Quebec courts in respect
of a proposal from class counsel to have the three supervisory
judges sit together in a fourth province to adjudicate certain
motions relating to the settlement.  The motions in question did
not require hearing of live testimony but only consideration of a
paper record. The provinces of the supervisory courts opposed the
proposal on jurisdictional grounds.

B.C. AND ONTARIO DECISIONS

The motions judges in all three provinces concluded that a
superior court judge can conduct out-of-province hearings. Only
the B.C. and Ontario decisions were appealed beyond the motion
stage.  Accordingly, the SCC did not consider whether the civil
law permits Quebec judges to conduct hearings outside Quebec.

The B.C. and Ontario provincial appellate courts differed on their
approach to the questions raised by the motions for directions.
The B.C. Court of Appeal found that the common law prohibited
judges from conducting hearings outside the province, but agreed
that it was permissible for a judge who was not physically present
in the province to conduct a hearing in a B.C. courtroom by
telephone or video conference.  At the Ontario Court of Appeal,
the majority of the court agreed that a superior court can conduct
an out-of-province hearing by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction,
but a differently constituted majority concluded that a video link
between the out-of-province courtroom and Ontario courtroom was
required.

SCC DECISION

The SCC unanimously held that superior court judges from B.C. and
Ontario have the discretionary power to hold an out-of-province
hearing in a class action proceeding in certain limited
circumstances.  The SCC restricted its analysis to the
circumstances before it in the Endean case, which concerned
motions that required consideration of only a paper record.

In particular, the SCC held that an out-of-province hearing will
be permissible when:

The court has jurisdiction over the parties and the issues
The judge will not have to resort to the court's coercive powers
in order to convene or conduct the hearing; and
The hearing is not contrary to the law of the jurisdiction in
which it will be held.

These restrictions demonstrate that a judge cannot, for example,
summon a witness to attend an extraprovincial hearing or even
compel a witness who is present to answer questions.

A video link to a courtroom in the judge's home province is not a
requirement for an extraprovincial hearing.  However, the SCC
indicated that a judge should consider the effects on "open
justice" raised by the presence or absence of a video link.
Accordingly, the SCC stated that absent good reason, a judge
should order a video link when one is requested whether by a
party, a member of the public or the media.

The SCC held that the discretionary power of B.C. and Ontario
judges to hold extraprovincial hearings in class actions arises
from the respective B.C. and Ontario Class Proceedings Act.  Those
Acts contain similar provisions that confer a broad discretionary
power to make orders respecting the conduct of class proceedings.
Further, the SCC stated that superior court judges from common law
provinces other than B.C. and Ontario also have the power to hold
extraprovincial hearings of the type at issue in Endean, unless
local legislation prohibited it.  Such power would arise either
from a comparable class action statute in such other province or,
failing that, from the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court
to control its processes in the interests of justice.

GUIDANCE ON WHEN THE COURT WILL EXERCISE DISCRETION TO CONVENE AN
EXTRAPROVINCIAL HEARING IN A CLASS ACTION

In its reasons, the SCC set out non-exhaustive guidance for
superior court judges to consider when determining whether to
convene a class action hearing outside the court's home
jurisdiction, including:

Whether the out-of-province hearing will impinge (or be seen as
impinging) on the sovereignty of the province where it is held.
If the benefits of an out-of-province hearing outweigh the costs.
The following factors may weigh into the analysis: "the length and
cost of the out-of-province hearing compared to a hearing in the
home province; whether the parties have agreed to travel out of
the latter and whether the proposed location imposes undue burdens
on the parties or the court; and whether there is a public
interest in the hearing taking place in the home province or
whether access to justice favours an out-of-province hearing,
among others."

What terms, if any, should be imposed on the out-of-province
hearing.  The SCC stated, by way of example, that the judge may
consider issues such as the payment of extraordinary costs
incurred as a result of the extraprovincial hearing and whether a
video link to the judge's home jurisdiction is appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS

Endean is an important endorsement of a superior court's ability
to regulate its process and proceedings but also reflects the
potentially significant limits on the power of a provincial court
judge to sit in extraprovincial hearings.  The SCC's decision is
supportive of the development of "procedural innovations in aid of
access to justice" and may allow for a more streamlined approach
to the coordination and management of multi-provincial class
actions in appropriate circumstances.  Further, given the SCC's
discussion of the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to
control its process, it seems possible that a superior court judge
also may be able to consider holding extraprovincial hearings in
non-class actions in an appropriate case.


CALIBER HOME: Must Defend Against "Carbone" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York denied Defendants' partial
motion to dismiss an amended complaint and nixed as moot a motion
to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, MICHAEL K.
CARBONE, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER
HOME LOANS, INC. and U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee of LSF9
Master Participation Trust, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
4919(JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Michael K. Carbone (Plaintiff) filed the putative class
action against Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (Caliber) and U.S. Bank
Trust, N.A. (U.S. Bank), as Trustee of LSF9 Master Participation
Trust (LSF9), (collectively, Defendants) alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1601 et seq., including TILA's implementing regulation,
Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1026.

He later filed an Amended Complaint asserting an FDCPA claim
against Caliber and a TILA claim against U.S. Bank. Specifically,
as to Caliber, Plaintiff makes two arguments: (1) Caliber violated
Section 1692g because it altered the statutory notice of debt to
require Plaintiff to dispute a debt in writing, and (2) the Notice
of Debt is misleading in violation of Sections 1692e(2) and (10)
because it lists two addresses, one of which is for return mail
only.

Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the Amendment
Complaint for these two claims against Caliber. As for Section
1692g, Defendants argue that "Caliber's notice virtually mirrors
the statutory language contained in the FDCPA." As for Section
1692e, Defendants contend that the FDCPA "does not impose
requirements on debt collectors about addresses to which consumers
may send requests for information."

In her Memorandum and Order dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/BdxhOo from Leagle.com, Judge Seybert hold that as
to Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim against Caliber, Plaintiff's
allegations that two addresses are materially misleading are
sufficient to plausibly state a claim and as to Plaintiff's
Section 1692g claim against Caliber, the Notice of Debt would
confuse the least sophisticated consumer.

Michael K. Carbone is represented by Abraham Kleinman, Esq. --
KLEINMAN, LLC; and Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq. -- EDELMAN COMBS
LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. is represented by Brian P. Hennessy, Esq.
-- bhennessy@perkinscoie.com -- David T. Biderman, Esq. --
dbiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Frederick Rivera, Esq. --
frivera@perkinscoie.com -- and Manny Joseph Caixeiro, Esq. --
mcaixeiro@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. is represented by Manny Joseph Caixeiro,
Esq. -- mcaixero@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP


COAST CAPITAL: Credit Union Appeals Class-Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Brend, writing for CBC News, reports that Eric Finkel
noticed something awry when he withdrew cash from an ATM while
travelling in Cambodia in 2012 and early 2013.

He knew Canadian and U.S. dollars were trading close to par, so he
was surprised by the transaction noted on his account -- the
exchange rate didn't add up.

There was a 2.3 per cent difference, leaving him short $11.42.

He wanted to understand why.  So he wrote to Coast Capital, his
credit union, for clarification.

In a series of responses, the credit union blamed the exchange
rate.

"The exchange rate used on ATM machines is calculated by the bank
who owns the machine," said the credit union in one email, never
admitting there was a service charge.

But Mr. Finkel wouldn't let it go.

He pushed until he found out the real reason why he was charged
that $11.42 -- it was a percentage surcharge on foreign currency
withdrawals, in addition to a $5 fee.

The credit union never explained.  Mr. Finkel had to do the math
himself.

Mr. Finkel, a consumer advocate, decided to launch a class action
lawsuit.

His lawyer launched legal action under a little-tested section of
B.C.'s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA).

The lawsuit says this was a breach of contract and a deceptive act
or practice contrary to the BPCP Act.

"Coast Capital's account agreement did not disclose any percentage
surcharge," reads the judgment by Justice David Masuhara, who
approved the certification of Mr. Finkel's class-action lawsuit.

Coast Capital denied committing any wrongs and characterized
Mr. Finkel's action as a "procedural weapon of mass destruction,"
adding that the case is devoid of an "air of reality."

But it has turned into something quite real that has caught the
attention of legal experts.

Commercial litigator Alexandra Cocks -- acocks@mccarthy.ca -- a
member of the National Class Actions Group at McCarthy Tetrault,
notes a growing trend of companies targeted in class actions over
fees charged that are not adequately disclosed, using a section of
the BPCP Act.

"This section of the act is relatively recent in terms of
litigation," she said.

"Because the act is considered to be very consumer friendly, and
that particular section of the act is worded broadly, I think it's
being viewed by plaintiff class action firms as a fruitful area
for litigation."

The Finkel case is one of dozens that pop up in a search of
"deceptive practices" under the BPCPA, most aimed at "deep pocket"
industries such as banks or insurance companies for hidden or
"deceptive" service charges . .

If Finkel wins, he won't get much -- just all the surcharges he
paid unwittingly on any foreign exchange withdrawals.

But so will anybody else who withdrew foreign currencies.  That
could add up to millions, fast.

"Class actions are concerning to all companies who may face them
because they are claims by multiple people at once and the stakes
can be high," said Ms. Cocks.

As of September 2015, the credit union posts the per cent-based
service charge and notes that there may be other charges.

The credit union is also appealing the class-action certification,
which is set to be heard in February of 2017.


CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Seeks Review of Order in "Curtis" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Contract Management Services, LLC, filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Curtis, et al. v. Contract
Management Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00487-NT, in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Maine, Bangor.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to seek damages in the amount of
alleged illegal deductions, unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay,
treble damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Maine Employment Practices Act.

In a Sept. 29 ruling, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration.  A copy of that order is available at
https://is.gd/DSx3mo from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as Curtis, et al. v. Contract
Management Services, LLC, Case No. 16-2273, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROBERT CURTIS, on behalf of himself and all
others situated, and ROBERT LOWELL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Phillip E. Johnson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
          160 Capitol St., Suite 3
          PO Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04332-0079
          Telephone: (207) 623-5110
          E-mail: pjohnson@johnsonwebbert.com
                  jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com

Defendant-Appellant CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, is
represented by:

          Brian Scott Kaplan, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 835-6000
          E-mail: brian.kaplan@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Uhl, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1 Monument Sq., Suite 600
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 774-6001
          E-mail: euhl@littler.com


CROSCILL HOME: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Russell" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Russell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Ryan Russell v. Croscill Home LLC, Case No. 3-16-cv-01190,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the claims against the Defendant over contract disputes.

On Oct. 12, 2016, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered an
order dismissing the class action complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Russell v. Croscill Home
LLC, Case No. 16-3939, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN RUSSELL, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gerald H. Clark, Eq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
          811 Sixteenth Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443-0333
          Facsimile: (732) 894-9647
          E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com

Defendant-Appellee CROSCILL HOME LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          Jinkal Pujara, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 424-5614
          Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
                  jinkal.pujara@bipc.com


DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL: McKinstry Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri McKinstry asks the Court to conditionally certify the matter
styled TERRI MCKINSTRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DEVELOPMENTAL ESSENTIAL SERVICES, INC. and
DION E. SCHARF, Case No. 2:16-CV-12565-SJM-MKM (E.D. Mich.), as a
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and to approve notice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


DOLLAR TREE: Nov. 21 Hearing on Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CURTIS PATTON, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; FRANCISCA GUILLEN,
an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia
corporation; and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-03813-MWF-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court to certify two subclasses on November 21, 2016 at 10:00
a.m.:

Wage Statement Subclass

   "all persons employed in one or more of Defendant's retail
   stores in California at any time on or after April 2, 2014 who
   received their wages via direct deposit or Pay Card and have
   not entered into an arbitration agreement with Defendant"; and

Store Manager Subclass

   "all persons employed as Store Manager in one or more of
   Defendant's retail stores in California at any time on or
   after April 2, 2011 who have not entered into an arbitration
   agreement with Defendant".

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiff Curtis
Patton, a former Store Manager of the Dollar Tree stores in Garden
Grove and Pico Rivera, California, as Class Representative for the
Store Manager Subclass; appoint Plaintiff Francisca Guillen, a
former Cashier and Assistant Manager in the Dollar Tree store in
Pico Rivera, California, as Class Representative for the Wage
Statement Subclass; and appoint Mike Arias and Mikael H. Stahle of
Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos LLP as Class Counsel.

The action seeks statutory penalties and alleges that Defendant's
wage statement policy violates Labor Code section, which requires
that where an employer provides wage statements to its employees
in electronic form, such electronic wage statements must be easily
accessible as well as convertible into print at no expense to the
employees. The employees must also be given the option to elect to
receive traditional hardcopy wage statements in lieu of the
electronic wage statements. The case also seeks restitution of
earned but unpaid overtime wages under the unfair prong of the
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on Defendant's policy of
classifying all Store Managers as exempt without adequate
determination of whether they are primarily engaged in exempt
work, as required under California law.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fHq7A9KQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE
          & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  mikael@asstlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lindbergh Porter, Esq.
          Mary D. Walsh, Esq.
          Dominic J. Messiha, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dengler, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399 8490
          E-mail: lporter@littler.com
                  mdwalsh@littler.com
                  dmessiha@littler.com
                  cdengler@littler.com


ENCLARITY INC: Matthew Fulton Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW N. FULTON, DDS, P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. ENCLARITY, INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
FL INC. and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 2:16-cv-13777-DPH-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), moves for entry of an order certifying this class under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

     Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
     from "LexisNexis" or "Enclarity," requesting that they
     "verify" or "update" their contact information, but not
     stating on its first page that the fax recipient may request
     that the sender not send any future fax and that its failure
     to comply with such a request within 30 days would be
     unlawful.

Matthew N. Fulton tells the Court that it files the Motion soon
after the filing of its class action complaint in order to avoid
an attempt by the Defendant(s) to moot its individual claims in
the class action.  However, in this case, the Plaintiff asserts,
additional discovery is necessary for the Court to determine
whether to certify the class it seeks to represent.  As a result,
Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as
practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4FCdEaz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Shaw Seeks Review of S.D. Cal. Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John T. Shaw, Kenneth Coke and Raymond Rydman filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled John Shaw, et
al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
01295-JLS-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

Plaintiff Shaw filed this putative class action on June 3, 2013
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and CitiMortgage, Inc. -- the
Furnisher Defendants -- and Experian, alleging four violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Furnisher Defendants' motions to dismiss.  The parties
later stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the Furnisher
Defendants.

In a Sept. 28 ruling, District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted
defendant's motion for summary judgment as to all three of
Plaintiff's causes of actions.  A copy of that Order is available
at https://is.gd/8ws8wg from Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as John Shaw, et al. v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-56587, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 23, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 23, 2016;

   -- Appellants Kenneth Coke, Raymond Rydman and John T. Shaw's
      opening brief is due on February 1, 2017;

   -- Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on March 3, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN T. SHAW, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, KENNETH COKE and RAYMOND RYDMAN are
represented by:

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 235-5306
          Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
          E-mail: mzevin@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., is
represented by:

          Kelly V. O'Donnell, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          12265 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 314-1138
          Facsimile: (858) 314-1150
          E-mail: kodonnell@jonesday.com


EXXON MOBIL: Wants to Halt New York AG's Fossil Fuels Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that Exxon Mobil
Corp. reversed course and no longer plans to cooperate, and
instead intends to engage in a legal battle with New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman, according to a motion filed by the
energy company on Oct. 17.

Mr. Schneiderman in November 2015 launched an investigation
related to the oil giant's climate change research to determine if
Exxon violated any state securities and consumer fraud laws by
misrepresenting or not reporting its finding about fossil fuel's
impact on the climate.

Initially, the Irving, Texas-based energy company had not fought
Mr. Schneiderman in the courts when he launched his investigation.

On Oct. 17, however, Exxon told a Dallas federal judge it wanted
to amend its pending complaint against Massachusetts Attorney
General Maura Healey so it also could include Mr. Schneiderman as
a defendant in the company's lawsuit, and would be aimed at
halting both his and her related investigations.

In a memorandum supporting its motion to amend that lawsuit, Exxon
lawyers wrote that Mr. Schneiderman issued a sweeping subpoena to
Exxon in November 2015 that demanded production of every document
in the company's possession regarding global warning created in
the past 40 years.

Exxon lawyers claimed in court papers that as the New York
attorney general's investigation unfolded, political motivations
for the probe became more apparent.

In March 2016, Mr. Schneiderman appeared at a press conference
where former vice president and climate activist Al Gore spoke,
Exxon's lawyers said.  At the event, Mr. Schneiderman and other
allied attorneys general identified themselves as "the Green 20,"
they wrote.

The "true purpose" of investigations by the New York and
Massachusetts attorneys general is "to suppress speech," Exxon
lawyers argued.

"The Attorneys General's claims that they are conducting a bona
fide investigation premised on Exxon Mobil's supposed failure to
account for the Attorneys General's expectations regarding the
financial impact of future regulations thus cannot be taken
seriously," the Exxon lawyers wrote.

"Their true objective is clear: to fish indiscriminately through
Exxon Mobil's records with the hope of finding some violation of
some law that one of them might be empowered to enforce, or
otherwise to harass Exxon Mobil into endorsing the Green 20's
policy views regarding how the United States," the Exxon lawyers
added.

In the pending court battle between the Massachusetts attorney
general and Exxon, there' no shortage of politicians: Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton leads a 10-state coalition supporting
Exxon.  Attorneys General from Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama,
Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Nevada
signed the states' friend-of-the-court brief. Attorneys General
from 20 other states, including New York, signed an amicus brief
backing Massachusetts.

Ms. Healey has asked the Dallas court to dismiss Exxon's lawsuit
based on lack of jurisdiction.

Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Mr. Schneiderman's office, said
in a written statement: "As we've seen for months, Exxon will do
everything in its power to distract, delay, and avoid any
investigation into its actions, which may have violated state
securities and consumer fraud laws.  Exxon's latest claims in its
stunt litigation in Texas are meritless, and are the same type of
claims that have been rejected by courts for years."

The spokeswoman noted that, her office filed a motion against
Exxon in New York State Court to compel it to produce documents
for the investigation.  "The move by Exxon represents nothing more
than a desperate attempt at forum-shopping, as they seek to avoid
being held to account under New York law in New York courts," Ms.
Spitalnick wrote.


FACEBOOK: Faces Advertisers' Class Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a group of Facebook
advertisers say in a federal class action in Oakland, Calif., that
the social media giant inflated estimates of the amount of time
users spend watching videos in order to entice ad buys.


FOUGERA PHARMA: Plumbers' Fund Sues Over Drug Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Novartis
International Ag, Akorn, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc.,
Perrigo Company PLC, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08374, (S.D. .Y., October 27, 2016), seeks to
recover damages,  restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
pre- and post- judgment interest, recovery of costs of suit and
such other and further relief under the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff accuses Defendant of fixing the prices of their generic
clobetasol products and generic desonide products. Plaintiff is a
local union that provides health care and other benefits to its
members.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Scott A. Martin, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (646) 357-1100
      Fax: (212) 202-4322
      Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 540-7200
      Fax: (202) 540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
             scherrer@hausfeld.com
             jkenney@hausfeld.com


FRED ALGER: Ott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosanne F. Ott filed an appeal from District Court opinion, dated
September 27, 2016, and District Court judgment, dated Sept. 28,
2016, in the lawsuit styled Ott v. Fred Alger Management, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-4418, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit arose from allegations of civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Ott v. Fred Alger Management,
Inc., Case No. 16-3599, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Rosanne F. Ott, Derivately on behalf of
similarly situated shareholders of Alger Health Science Fund, is
represented by:

          Jonathan Scott Sack, Esq.
          SACK & SACK, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          110 East 59th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 702-9702
          E-mail: jonathansack@hotmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Fred Alger Management, Inc., is represented by:

          Todd C. Norbitz, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-7474
          E-mail: tnorbitz@foley.com


GOOGLE INC: Age Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
James G. Ryan, Esq., of Cullen and Dykman LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, wrote that a software developer in California recently
prevailed in a key ruling regarding her lawsuit against Google.

The developer, Cheryl Fillekes, originally brought a suit against
the multinational technology company in 2015, claiming that the
company systemically discriminates against older job applicants
and employees.

By way of background, Ms. Fillekes interviewed with Google for
four different positions between 2007 and 2014.  Ms. Fillekes was
not hired for any of these positions at the company, despite her
claims of being qualified, and alleged that it was due to her age.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"),
age discrimination "involves treating someone, either an applicant
or an employee, less favorably because of his or her age."  The
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") forbids age
discrimination against individuals who are forty years old or
older.

The complaint against Google states "Plaintiffs allege that Google
has engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating
against individuals (including Plaintiffs) who are age 40 and
older in hiring, compensation and other employment decisions with
the resultant effect that persons age 40 or older are
systematically excluded from positions for which they are well-
qualified."  As evidence of the alleged unequal treatment,
Fillekes stated that a recruiter for Google instructed her to mark
down the dates of graduations from schools on her resume "so the
interviewers [could] see how old [she was]."  Furthermore,
Fillekes submitted statements from seven other individuals who
claimed to have had similar experiences with the company, and
cited statistics that claim the median age for programmers at
Google is 29 years old, compared to a national average of around
42 years old.

Google has rejected all of Ms. Fillekes' allegations, claiming
that they are without merit.  "We believe the allegations here are
without merit and we will continue to defend our position
vigorously.  We have strong policies against discrimination on any
unlawful basis, including age," said a spokesperson for the
company.

In a lengthy court order, U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman
recently certified the case against Google, which in essence
permits aggrieved applicants aged 40 and older to unite against
Google in a single suit.  People who "interviewed in person with
Google for a software engineer, site reliability engineer or
systems engineer position when they were 40 years old or older,
and received notice on or after August 28, 2014, that they were
refused employment, will have an opportunity to join in the
collective action against Google."  The judge further instructed
Google to compile a list of software developers over the age of
forty who sat for an in-person interview and been denied a job.
And although Google moved to dismiss the complaint, in part by
citing age provisions in its corporate anti-discrimination policy,
Judge Freeman refused to dismiss the suit based on these facts
alone, noting that all companies now have such policies, and thus
they should not be considered proof that companies do not
discriminate.

All corporate cultures should keep a close eye on this case and if
necessary, update their hiring practices, policies and procedures
accordingly.


GREAT LAKES HIGHER: Groshek Appeals W.D. Wisc. Ruling to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cory Groshek filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Cory Groshek v. Great Lakes Higher Education
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00143-jdp, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Cory Groshek
sued Great Lakes in a proposed class action for allegedly
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Plaintiff seeks
statutory damages rather than actual damages, but statutory
damages are available only for willful violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Cory Groshek v. Great Lakes
Higher Education Corporation, Case No. 16-3711, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by November 2, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 28, 2016,
      for Cory Groshek.

Plaintiff-Appellant CORY GROSHEK, and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Michael J. Modl, Esq.
          AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP
          Two E. Mifflin Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-5661
          E-mail: mmodl@axley.com

               - and -

          Heath Paul Straka, Esq.
          GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE
          8150 Excelsior Drive
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          E-mail: straka@gcllawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION is
represented by:

          John N. Giftos, Esq.
          BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN
          5325 Wall Street
          Madison, WI 53718
          Telephone: (608) 216-7990
          Facsimile: (608) 216-7999
          E-mail: jgiftos@bellgiftos.com


GULFSTREAM PARK: "Phuong" Action Alleges Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Phuong, Plaintiff, v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01565 (S.D. Fla., October 27,
2016), seeks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation as
well as other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, worked as poker dealers
at the Defendant's casino, Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, and
were considered 'tipped' employees under the FLSA.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Judge Hears Arguments in Accutane Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
lawyers argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court on Oct. 13 over
whether an appeals court erred in overturning a $25 million
verdict against a pharmaceutical company because the plaintiff
violated the statute of limitations in the state where he lives.

A lawyer representing the plaintiff, Andrew McCarrell, asked the
court on Oct. 13 to reinstate the verdict, saying New Jersey's
statute of limitations should apply because of the state's
interest in protecting consumers from injuries caused by products
manufactured in New Jersey.

Conversely, the lawyer representing defendants Hoffmann-La Roche
Inc. and Roche Laboratories said allowing plaintiffs such as
Mr. McCarrell, who is from Alabama, to avail themselves of
New Jersey's statute of limitations would allow them to go forum
shopping if their home states had more restrictive laws.

Mr. McCarrell is claiming that he developed Crohn's disease after
taking Hoffmann-La Roche's acne drug Accutane, marketed as an acne
remedy.  His lawsuit is one of several thousand that have been
assigned to Atlantic County under the judiciary's mass-tort
guidelines.  Until 2012, Hoffmann-La Roche's North American
headquarters were in Nutley.

In August 2015, an Appellate Division panel overturned the
verdict, saying Alabama's statute of limitations applied, which
meant Mr. McCarrell's claim would have been time-barred.

The New Jersey law applied in the case allows equitable tolling of
its two-year statute of limitations under "discovery rule"
principles, while Alabama law bars such tolling except for fraud
cases, said appeals court Judges Jack Sabatino, Marie Simonelli
and George Leone.

That reversal of the $25 million verdict marked the second time a
verdict for Mr. McCarrell had been overturned on appeal.  In 2007,
Mr. McCarrell was awarded $2.7 million but the Roche defendants
appealed, and that verdict was overturned on an evidentiary issue.
The $25 million verdict was awarded after a 2010 retrial.

Mr. McCarrell acted properly in availing himself of New Jersey's
statute of limitations, said Mr. McCarrell's attorney, David
Buchanan.  "There were relevant interests and contacts" for the
lawsuit to be filed in New Jersey, said Mr. Buchanan --
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss in New York.  "This
was not forum shopping."

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia asked why that was so.
"New Jersey has a strong interest in deterrence regarding New
Jersey-based conduct," Mr. Buchanan said.  "You're in business
here and you're doing things here."

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner also brought up the issue of
plaintiffs looking for more friendly venues to file their
lawsuits.

Again, Buchanan said that was not the case here.  "The defendant
is located in this state.  This is defendant's house," he said.
"You'd think that the defendant would rather be tried in his home
state," said Justice Barry Albin.  Mr. Buchanan said he agreed
with that notion.

Mr. Buchanan added that Hoffmann-La Roche almost invited lawsuits
involving Accutane to be filed in New Jersey because of the
wording on the medication's bottle.   "It said call La Roche in
Nutley, N.J., if you have a problem," he said.


HOUSEHOLD LIFE: Wilt Appeals From S.D. W.Va. Ruling to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharon Wilt filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Sharon Wilt v. Household Life Insurance Co., Case
No. 2:14-cv-31400, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia at Charleston.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.  Plaintiff
brings this action against Defendant alleging several causes of
action arising out of a credit disability insurance policy
purchased from Household and the number of monthly loan payments
the insurance would cover should Plaintiff become disabled.

In Sept. 30 Memorandum Opinion and Order, District Judge Thomas E.
Johnston in Charleston granted Household's Motion to Dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Sharon Wilt v. Household Life
Insurance Co., Case No. 16-2210, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Initial forms in the Appellate Case are due within 14 days.

Plaintiff-Appellant SHARON WILT, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Maryl C. Sattler, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  msattler@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com

Defendant-Appellee HOUSEHOLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Conor Phillip Brady, Esq.
          Harry Lee, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-1795
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: cbrady@steptoe.com
                  hlee@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Ancil Glenn Ramey, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
          P. O. Box 2195
          Huntington, WV 25722-2195
          Telephone: (304) 526-8133
          E-mail: ancil.ramey@steptoe-johnson.com

Third Party Defendant BENEFICIAL WEST VIRGINIA, INC., is
represented by:

          William Walter Booker, Esq.
          Thomas Howard Ewing, Esq.
          KAY CASTO & CHANEY PLLC
          P. O. Box 2031
          Charleston, WV 25327-2031
          Telephone: (304) 345-8900
          E-mail: wbooker@kaycasto.com
                  tewing@kaycasto.com

               - and -

          Brendan S. Everman, Esq.
          Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          Southeast Financial Center
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131-2385
          Telephone: (305) 358-9900
          Facsimile: (305) 789-9302
          E-mail: beverman@stroock.com
                  bfrontino@stroock.com


HUMANA INC: Appeals Order Granting Class Cert. in "Kinkead" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Humana, Inc., Humana at Home, Inc., and SeniorBidge
Family Companies (CT), Inc., filed an appeal from a District Court
ruling granting motion for certification and stay, dated October
13, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled Kinkead v. Humana, Inc., Case
No. 15-cv-1637, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Daverlynn
Kinkead asked the Court to conditionally certify the Case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to
approve proposed notice to class members.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated a new
administrative rule in 2013 to expand the class of workers to whom
employers must pay higher wages for overtime work under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule had an effective date of
January 1, 2015. But just as the rule was to take hold, a federal
district judge in the District of Columbia vacated the rule on the
ground that it was inconsistent with the statute. The DOL
appealed, and several months later the D.C. Circuit reversed the
district court's decision, issuing its mandate in October 2015.
The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari.

Plaintiff brought this putative class action to recover pay for
overtime hours she worked between January and May 2015 as a home
health care worker employed by defendants at a facility in
Connecticut. Because plaintiff falls within the expanded class of
workers covered by the new administrative rule -- and because
plaintiff seeks overtime pay for work performed between the rule's
stated effective date in January 2015 and the D.C. Circuit's
mandate reversing the district court's vacatur of the rule in
October 2015 -- defendants' liability in this case hinges on the
date that the rule is determined to have taken effect.

In their motion to dismiss, defendants argued that employers were
liable to pay overtime only from the date that the D.C. Circuit's
mandate issued in October 2015. In opposition, plaintiff argued
that -- notwithstanding the interim vacatur of the rule by the
D.C. district court -- that the D.C. Circuit's decision had
retroactive effect, fully reinstating the agency's effective date
for the new rule to impose liability on employers as of January 1,
2015.

On July 19, 2016, Connecticut District Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the D.C.
Circuit's decision reversing the district court's vacatur applied
retroactively, and therefore the new rule took effect on the
effective date set forth by the agency.

Defendants moved to certify the July 19 order for interlocutory
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), and for a stay pending
appeal.  Plaintiff opposed.  On Oct. 13, Judge Meyer granted
Defendants' motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Kinkead v. Humana, Inc., Case
No. 16-3593, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent Daverlynn Kinkead, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradise Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

Defendants-Petitioners Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge Family
Companies (CT), Inc., and Humana, Inc., are represented by:

          Marc L. Zaken, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          2 Stamford Plaza
          281 Tresser Boulevard
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 969-3100
          E-mail: mzaken@eapdlaw.com


IDAHO: Medicaid Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Prentice, writing for Boise Weekly, reports that following
a nearly five-year legal battle, attorneys representing the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare and ACLU of Idaho have received
preliminary court approval for a settlement that is expected to
affect about 4,000 Idahoans with developmental disabilities.

The settlement is one of the final chapters in the case of K.W. v.
Armstrong -- "K.W." is a Idaho male with severe epilepsy and
"Armstrong" is Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director
Dick Armstrong.

The lawsuit challenged policies and procedures that IDHW had
applied to thousands of participants in its Adult Developmental
Disability Services.  The suit came in the wake of a 2012
announcement that indicated the department would reduce Medicaid
reimbursement rates for supported living and residential
rehabilitation provider agencies.

In effect, thousands of Idahoans with developmental disabilities
saw massive cuts to their service levels, their attorneys argued.
When asked to justify the cuts, IDHW officials declined, saying
their reasoning constituted "trade secrets."

Ultimately, a federal court judge restored nearly $30 million in
Medicaid assistance to the program and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the ruling.  More important, Idaho Chief U.S. Judge
B. Lynn Winmill earlier this year struck down IDHW's formula
altogether, concluding it was unconstitutional in that it
"arbitrarily deprived participants of their property rights and
hence violated due process."

Some details of the class action settlement were announced Oct.
24, including an overhaul of IDHW's model for setting service
levels, and new training and reimbursements for advocates who help
the disabled with any possible appeal to their assistance levels.

"We're pleased to see a new era on the horizon for Idahoans with
developmental disabilities," said ACLU of Idaho Executive Director
Leo Morales.  "Hopefully this settlement will bolster the voice of
these Idahoans, while also permanently protecting their
constitutional rights."

All of the parties are expected back in court on Jan. 12, 2017 to
finalize the settlement agreement.


ILLINOIS, USA: Seeks Certification of "Morales" Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled MOISES MORALES, et al. v. CRAIG
FINDLEY, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07572 (N.D. Ill.), jointly move
the Court to issue an order certifying a plaintiff class of adult
parolees in the state of Illinois.

Craig Findley is the chairman of Prisoner Review Board of the
state of Illinois.

The Parties jointly seek the certification of a settlement class
of all people who, while on parole/Mandatory Supervised Release
("MSR") are supervised by the Illinois Department Corrections
("IDOC") and who now or in the future will be subject to parole
revocation proceedings conducted by the IDOC and the Illinois
Prisoner Review Board.

According to the Motion, the Settlement class does not include any
persons encompassed by the class definition in M.H. v. Monreal et
al., (12-cv-8523).  The Settlement Agreement negotiated by the
Parties will provide due process protections for class members
subject to parole revocation proceedings, the Parties assert.
Specifically, they say, the Settlement Agreement requires that the
Prisoner Review Board will screen parolees to determine if they
meet certain eligibility criteria to be appointed counsel at no
cost to them.  If a parolee meets the eligibility criteria, the
Prisoner Review Board will appoint counsel for that parolee.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have also agreed to
implement other procedural protections, including hearing
timelines and guidelines to ensure that parole hearings are fair
and unbiased and that parolees have sufficient notice of their
alleged violation(s) and an opportunity to be heard.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          375 East Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 503-1336
          E-mail: Sheila.Bedi@law.northwestern.edu

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael T. Dierkes, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          GENERAL LAW BUREAU
          100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814-3720
          E-mail: mdierkes@atg.state.il.us


INTERCEPT CORP: DC Ruling Won't Predict Dakota Case Outcome
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a lawsuit in North Dakota federal district court could provide an
early test of the reach of a federal appeals court decision that
confronted what the judges called the "massive, unchecked power"
of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In June, the CFPB sued payment processor Intercept Corp., alleging
the company and two of its executives allowed clients to make
unauthorized and illegal withdrawals from consumers' accounts.
The CFPB's complaint in U.S. District Court for North Dakota
alleged Intercept ignored red flags -- such as warnings from banks
and complaints from consumers -- and "knew or consciously avoided
knowing that many of the transactions initiated by those companies
were fraudulent or illegal."

Lawyers for Intercept seized on a Washington federal appeals court
ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the structure of the
CFPB.  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit ruled that too much power was vested in the CFPB's
director, Richard Cordray, whom Judge Brett Kavanaugh described as
"the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. government,
other than the president."

The D.C. Circuit decision wiped out a $109 million fine against
the mortgage loan provider PHH Corp. and cost Mr. Cordray some
measure of job security.  The appeals court said the president
could remove the agency's director at will rather than only "for
cause."

The appeals panel expressly declined to address whether its ruling
would affect earlier CFPB enforcement actions.  The court sent the
PHH case back to the agency for further review.
Intercept's defense team alerted the North Dakota court to the
D.C. Circuit action in the hope the local judge finds it
persuasive and dismisses the CFPB's case.  The ruling in
Washington does not dictate the outcome in North Dakota.
The consumer bureau responded on Oct. 14, strongly signaling that
the agency will challenge the D.C. Circuit ruling.

The panel's decision "announced a new constitutional rule that
agencies must be structured as multimember commissions if their
heads are removable only 'for cause' rather than at the will of
the president," CFPB lawyers wrote in their court filing.

"The panel decision was wrongly decided and is not likely to
withstand further review," CFPB lawyers added.  "Nor would the PHH
decision control the outcome of this motion in any event. This
court is, of course, not bound by the decisions of an appellate
court outside of the Eighth Circuit."

Intercept, represented by Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia and the
Fargo, North Dakota-based firm Anderson, Bottrell, Sanden &
Thompson, argued the decision supported its push to dismiss the
CFPB's case.

"The Court of Appeals found in favor of PHH in every possible
respect and, critically for the purposes of the present
litigation, ruled that the structure of the Bureau violates
Article II of the U.S. Constitution by lodging 'massive, unchecked
power' in the director," wrote Anderson Bottrell attorney Michael
Andrews.


JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: 1st Circuit Appeal Filed in "Depianti" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Giovani Depianti filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Depianti, et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising
International, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-10663-MLW, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Giovani
Depianti, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along with
franchisees from other States, filed a putative class action in
the District Court alleging that Jan-Pro misclassified him as an
independent contractor and committed various wage law violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Depianti, et al. v. Jan-Pro
Franchising International, Inc., Case No. 16-2256, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Docketing Statement is due on November 3, 2016;

   -- Transcript Report/Order form is due on November 3, 2016;
      and

   -- Appearance form is due on November 3, 2016.

The First Circuit also notified the parties that the December 1,
2016 amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure make
significant changes to appellate practice.  The full text of the
amendments, as well as a summary of major rule changes, is
available at https://goo.gl/tzUpHu.  The changes are effective on
December 1, 2016.

Plaintiff-Appellant GIOVANI DEPIANTI, and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tully, Esq.
          FAIR WORK PC
          192 South St., Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  etully@jatwork.org

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

Plaintiffs HYUN KI KIM, KYU JIN ROH, GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA
ROMAN, JUAN AGUILAR, NICOLE RHODES, MATEO GARDUNO, CHIARA HARRIS
and TODOR SINAPOV, and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK PC
          192 South St., Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL INC. is
represented by:

          Christopher Michael Pardo, Esq.
          Jeffrey Mark Rosin, Esq.
          CONSTANGY BROOKS & SMITH LLP
          535 Boylston Street, Suite 902
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 849-7884
          E-mail: cpardo@constangy.com
                  jrosin@constangy.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey M. Raux, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          111 Huntington Ave., Suite 2600
          Boston, MA 02199-7610
          Telephone: (617) 342-4000
          E-mail: graux@foley.com


KIIP INC: Faces Class Action Over Runkeeper User Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
mobile marketing company with several high-profile clients faces a
class action complaint over collection of user data.

Jessica Vasil and Christine Farag, both of Illinois, filed their
complaint Oct. 21 in federal court in Chicago, accusing San
Francisco-based Kiip Inc. of extracting information from
smartphone users without their consent, "tracking and intercepting
millions of users' electronic communications without their
knowledge," even while they weren't using their devices. They seek
at least $5 million in damages.

Kiip displays advertising on smartphones and tablet applications,
connecting software developers and third-party advertisers such as
Coca-Cola, Marriott and Home Depot, according to the complaint,
which further states Kiip reaches more than 100 million consumers
through more than 5,000 apps.

The complaint said the alleged practices began in 2014, and
induced at least one developer, Fitnesskeeper, to end its contract
with Kiip and issue a public apology for the personal information
extracted from users of the Runkeeper app, which has nearly 50
million users worldwide.

"Although mobile app companies collect user information, in many
cases user data is also gathered by third-party software or
technology integrated into a mobile app," the complaint states.
"When a consumer downloads, installs and uses a mobile app on a
smartphone, she usually does not know whether the app contains
third-party technology that will collect or receive information
about the user and her use of the app.  Rarely, if ever, are
consumers' informed of the actual identity of such third-parties."

The complaint said Kiip uses technology known as a third-party
tracker to "monitor and record information about smartphone users,
including how they use their smartphone and what their usage
patterns are.  They also collect more personal information, such
as behavior patterns, interests and data about the user's
particular device."

According to the complaint, Kiip began working with Fitnesskeeper
on Aug. 14, 2014.  The ads it delivered "contained offers and
promotions for various products, and were designed to appear at
the moment a user completed a challenge or beat their best run
time, so as to make the user feel as though they were being
rewarded."

The suit said the Norwegian Consumer Council, on May 10, 2016,
filed a complaint regarding Kiip with the Norwegian Data
Protection Authority based on a mobile app privacy risk study from
SINTEM, "an independent scientific and industrial research
organization," which singled out apps like Runkeeper because they
tend to collect detailed location and user health data --
including tracking a user's GPS location even when the phone isn't
being used.

According to the complaint, Kiip failed to notify users it was
collecting the data and intercepting private electronic
communications, which also means it failed to seek consent for
access to and use of the personal information.  One week after the
Norwegian report, Runkeeper founder and CEO Jason Jacobs issued a
public apology and announced Kiip technology would be removed from
his company's apps.

The class, which could include anyone in the U.S. who used
Runkeeper, and subclass, Runkeeper users in Illinois, could
include millions of users.  The formal allegations include a
violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, unjust enrichment and, for
the Illinois subclass, a violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping
Statute.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the
plaintiffs seek statutory, punitive and actual damages.  The
subclass would seek profit disgorgement or restitution.

Attorneys from McGuire Law, of Chicago, are representing Vasil and
Farag, and potentially the class of additional plaintiffs.


LANDSCAPE RESOURCES: "Quevedo" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Quevedo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Landscape Resources, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01176 (W.D. Tex., October 6, 2016), seeks actual
damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees,
taxable costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Landscape Resources, a Texas-based commercial landscape
management, design, building and maintenance company, employed
Quevedo, without paying thim overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Joe K. Crews, Esq.
      CREWS LAW FIRM, P.C.
      701 Brazos, Suite 900
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 346-7077
      Fax: (512) 342-0007
      Email: schmidt@crewsfirm.com
             crews@crewsfirm.com


LENDUP: Beefs Up Legal Department Following Customer Fee Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
after facing claims that it misled customers, the online lender
LendUp has beefed up its legal department in hopes of proving that
it's turned over a new leaf.  But was a lack of lawyers really the
problem in the first place?

State and federal regulators announced in late September that
LendUp, a San Francisco-based startup, agreed to pay $6.3 million
to resolve allegations that it illegally charged customers fees,
miscalculated interest rates and falsely advertised loans that
weren't available.  "LendUp pitched itself as a consumer-friendly,
tech-savvy alternative to traditional payday loans, but it did not
pay enough attention to the consumer financial laws," said Richard
Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
which investigated LendUp, in a statement.

LendUp, which is backed by leading venture capital firms such as
Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, has acknowledged missteps. It has
also been quick to point out that it responded by overhauling its
compliance program and legal department.  Today, it has a general
counsel and five other in-house attorneys, including a former CFPB
lawyer.  According to Linked-In, they have all been hired since
2015.  The company also boasts that it now has 10 employees on its
compliance team.

"We are a different company today," LendUp said in a statement.
"We genuinely believed the product features that were identified
by the CFPB -- like optional expedited funding and a 30 cent
discount for early repayment -- were in the best interests of our
customers.  But we fell short in the execution and in meeting the
expectations of our regulators."

Phil Neiswender, president and chief legal officer for the Center
for Board Excellence in Seattle, has worked for a handful of
startups in both a business and legal capacity.  He can certainly
empathize with a young company not having a legal and compliance
mechanism in place from day one.  But he isn't buying into the
theory that none of these issues would have happened at LendUp had
it hired lawyers, even if only on an outside counsel basis.
"They want to have this story of why it's not risky anymore, and
there's a certain amount of truth to that," Neiswender says.  "But
Wells Fargo has an army of lawyers in place and look what has
happened there."

It's not unusual for startups to face regulatory scrutiny,
especially in Silicon Valley, says E.M. Lysonge, general counsel
for on-demand retailer CafePress Inc. Startups have limited
resources, especially in the beginning, so they are generally more
focused on hiring technology-focused people than hiring legal and
compliance services, he says.  "For startups, especially in
technology, you have to move fast," Mr. Lysonge says. "Your idea
is only novel for a finite period of time."  And, he admits,
"lawyers can sometimes inadvertently slow down the process."

But the case highlights the dangers of skimping on compliance,
says Stasia Kelly -- stasia.kelly@dlapiper.com -- a partner at DLA
Piper and former general counsel for FannieMae, Sears and AIG.
While there's no indication of LendUp's investors getting cold
feet, she points out that startups risk losing their funding if
they get in regulatory trouble.

In its latest round of Series B funding, LendUp raised about $150
million, so the $6 million it coughed up isconsidered just a speed
bump for the company.  Even still, Ms. Kelly says, "there are a
lot of things I could do with $6 million if I were leading their
legal department."


LINKEDIN: Settles "Add Connections" Class Action for $13-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Neal, writing for The Inquirer, reports that some lucky
LinkedIn users are reportedly getting a massive $20 cheque from
the company because of a class action suit over how pushy the firm
is, and how keen it is the link people together.

LinkedIn is a kind of social network, but one for people that do
business, talk about business, and like to be seen to be well
connected in business.  It has plenty of users, and is plenty
popular.  Microsoft paid as lot of money for the firm, it may be
sad to see some of it going the wrong way.

Online reports that we have asked the firm to confirm say that $20
cheques are going out to those users who took part in the class
action suit over this cloying over attention.  Mashable reports
that the case comes down to annoying emails, although we suspect
that the legal representatives used a bit more sophisticated
language.

The problem is that while LinkedIn users agree to mail their inbox
contacts about them also joining the club, they don't agree to
repeatedly asking the same question.  That is what LinkedIn was
doing though through the Add Connections program, and people did
not like it.

A class action suit was put together, and there is a whole site
that looks to clean up the mess that Add Connections created. That
page says that LinkedIn will pay $13m to members, dishing that
money out on a pro-rata basis.

"The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Authorized
Claimants on a pro rata basis, which means the payment amount
depends on the number of Authorized Claimants.  If the number of
Authorized Claimants results in a payment amount of less than $10,
LinkedIn will add an additional amount of up to $750,000 to the
$13 million fund," it says.

"If a Settlement Class Member submits a timely and valid Claim
Form by December 14, 2015, and the Court gives final approval to
the Settlement, the Authorized Claimant will receive his or her
payment about 90 days after the Court gives final approval of the
Settlement, assuming that no one files an appeal challenging the
Settlement."


MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Customer Complaints Over Massage Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
WSVN reports that they paid for massages they never got to use and
then, when they wanted to use them, they were told they had to pay
more to get the massages.  Confusing, yes. Legal? It's why they
called Help Me Howard with Patrick Fraser.

The children were young. You know how much work that can mean, and
so Manzikella's husband had an nice idea . . .

Manzikella Brown, paid for massages: "Go have one hour a month and
have a massage."

In 2009, the Browns signed a contract for $108 a month for
Manzikella and her husband to each get a massage each month.

Manzikella Brown: "One hour relaxing by yourself with low music,
massage music."

It's now seven years later and those girls are growing up, both
are synchronized swimmers and life is a little hectic for the
Browns.

Manzikella Brown: "So now I have to take them and pick them up
from school.  Take them to practice three times a week, do
homework, me-work, so I don't have the time that much to get a
message."

The massage contract automatically renews each year unless you
cancel it.

Manzikella Brown: "I do need it now, but I don't have time."

So Manzikella checked and discovered she and her husband had paid
for 76 massages they had not used.

Manzikella Brown: "I haven't had one I think in maybe six months
or seven months.  I'm not sure."

They called Massage Envy to cancel the contract and to make sure
Manzikella could use her 36 massages and her husband could use his
40 massages.

Manzikella Brown: "And they say, 'Well you have 30 days to use
them all.' It is impossible for me to use 36 massages in one
month."

They were then offered another option --

Manzikella Brown: "They said the most she can do is freeze my
account for six months, still charge me $10 a month to keep it
open, and I can use my massages for six months."

Manzikella's reply? Why should she keep paying $10 a month for the
right to get massages she had already paid for.

Manzikella Brown: "Just cancel my account.  I'm not asking for any
money back, I'm just asking for the chance to use them and not
keep charging me for it."

Well Howard, can the company force you to pay to get massages
already paid for?

Howard Finkelstein, 7News legal expert: "If you read the contract,
yes they can -- but, and this is a big but, because so many people
were upset by this -- there was a class action lawsuit that has
been partially resolved and allows the customer to use their
massage credits for 60 days after they cancel the contract and do
not have to pay a monthly fee for those 60 days."

WSVN contacted Massage Envy in Cooper City -- and they were
extremely generous.

Instead of giving the Browns 60 days to use their massages, they
gave them six months and they don't have to pay a monthly fee.
Then if they have any massages left over, they will give them
another six months to use them for a $10 monthly charge.

Howard Finkelstein: "The Browns got a great resolution, but if you
are part of the class action lawsuit and don't use up the massages
you have stored up with the 60 days, you lose them."

Manzikella Brown: "Which is what I wanted . . . not to charge me
anything."

Manzikella takes care of her kids schedule. Now she can schedule
time for herself to get the massages she has already paid for.

Manzikella Brown: "Yes, I am very happy with Help Me Howard."

And nice of Massage Envy to do that.  Now no matter what you are
buying, if a contract is involved and you don't like something in
it, ask them to change it.  If they won't, walk away.  In many
cases that will get them to do what you want them to do.


NATIONAL UNION: Gonzales Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs George Gonzales, Manette Dubuisson and Alice Lacks
filed an appeal from a District Court order, dated September 19,
2016, in their lawsuit titled Gonzales v. National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Case No. 15-cv-2259, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 12,
2016, District Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Case.  The Plaintiffs filed the putative
class action complaint against National Union Fire Insurance
Company, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), Catamaran
Health Solutions, LLC, Stonebridge Life Insurance Company,
Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Federal Insurance
Company, Alliant Services, and Virginia Surety Company, Inc.,
through the HealthExtras Program.

The Plaintiffs allege that HealthExtras and the other defendants
sent New York residents direct mail solicitations representing
that the HealthExtras program provides valuable protection in the
form of a $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 tax free cash payment if you're
permanently disabled due to an accident.  Because HealthExtras is
not a licensed insurer or broker, it contracted with Defendants
National Union, Stonebridge, Transamerica, and Federal to
underwrite and issue the disability insurance coverage offered in
the HealthExtras Program and Defendant Virginia Surety to
underwrite and issue the Program's medical expense insurance
coverage.  National Union, in turn, hired Defendant AIG to process
claims made under the HealthExtras Program that related to
policies issued by National Union.  Defendant Alliant Services was
the insurance broker under the HealthExtras Program.

The appellate case is captioned as Gonzales v. National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 16-3526, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Manette Dubuisson, Alice Lacks and George
Gonzales are represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 560-2201
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

Defendants-Appellees National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pa., American International Group, Inc., and Catamaran
Health Solutions, LLC, FKA Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., AKA
Healthextras, Inc., are represented by:

          Andrew D. Hart, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5000
          E-mail: ahart@sidley.com

Defendants-Appellees Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, FKA J.C.
Penney Life Insurance Company and Transamerica Financial Life
Insurance Company are represented by:

          John Sandercock, Esq.
          LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
          100 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 964-6611
          E-mail: jsandercock@lskdnylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Federal Insurance Company is represented by:

          Jessica S. Carey, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: jcarey@paulweiss.com

Defendant-Appellee Virginia Surety Company, Inc., is represented
by:

          Harvey Kurzweil, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-4620
          E-mail: hkurzweil@winston.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Beechum Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jamie Beechum and Monica Hervey filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Jamie Beechum, et al. v.
Navient Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08239-JGB-KK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought to recover treble damages for usurious interest
exceeding 10% per annum, return of all interest previously paid
exceeding 10% per annum and injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant from charging interest at rate exceeding 10% per annum.

On Sept. 21, 2016, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Beechum, et al. v.
Navient Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56564, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 21, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on February 17, 2017;

   -- Appellants Jamie Beechum and Monica Hervey's opening brief
      is due on March 29, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Navient Credit Finance
      Corporation, Navient Solutions, Inc., SLM Private Credit
      Student Loan Trust 2005-A, The Bank of New York Mellon
      Trust Company, N.A., and VL Funding LLC is due on April 28,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMIE BEECHUM and MONICA HERVEY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          William J. Genego, Esq.
          WILLIAM GENEGO LAW OFFICES
          2115 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 399-3270
          E-mail: bill@genegolaw.com

               - and -

          Evan A. Jenness, Esq.
          EVAN A. JENNESS, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
          Main Street Law Building
          2115 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 399-3259
          Facsimile: (310) 392-9029
          E-mail: evan@jennesslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Neil Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Sally Handmaker, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 284-4533
          E-mail: shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., VL FUNDING LLC and
NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION are represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Ashley Margaret Simonsen, Esq.
          Sonya D. Winner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7057
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7072
          E-mail: asimonsen@cov.com
                  swinner@cov.com

Defendants-Appellees SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-A
and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., in its
representative capacity as Trustee for SLM Private Credit Student
Loan Trust 2005-A, are represented by:

          Sheldon Eisenberg, Esq.
          Erin McCracken, Esq.
          Adam J. Thurston, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          1800 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (213) 253-2300
          E-mail: sheldon.eisenberg@dbr.com
                  erin.mccracken@dbr.com
                  adam.thurston@dbr.com


NEW JERSEY TAX SALES: $9,585,000 Settlement Has Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to the
settlement and the request for attorneys' fees and costs in the
case captioned, IN RE NEW JERSEY TAX SALES CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST
LITIG, Case No. 12-1893 (MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against participants in
an alleged bid-rigging conspiracy involving municipal auctions of
real property liens in the state of New Jersey. Plaintiffs' First
Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint (FACC) alleges
that Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to restrain
trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:9-3,
the New Jersey Tax Lien Law, N.J.S.A. Section 54:5-63.1, and New
Jersey common law. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to unlawfully manipulate the interest
rates associated with Tax Sales Certificates (TSCs) sold at public
auctions in New Jersey.

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Master Class
Action Complaint, and some of the non-settling defendants filed
motions to dismiss. On October 31, 2014, the Court issued a
decision granting in part and denying in part the motions to
dismiss. Importantly, the Court denied the motions to dismiss with
respect to Plaintiffs' antitrust claim but dismissed with
prejudice Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and New Jersey Tax Sale
law claims.

From the Spring of 2012 through the Spring of 2013, Lead Counsel
intensively negotiated settlements with various counsel
representing the Butler/Farber, Rothman, Mercer, Pisciotta,
Collins, and May Defendants. From August 13, 2013 to October 30,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval for numerous
settlements with Defendants in the action -- totaling $9,585,000
in cash, plus interest, and discounts for those class members who
are still subject to a tax sales certificate.

Counsel have attested that applying historical rates to the
7,109.05 hours worked yields a total lodestar of $3,750,782 for
the applicable work performed in prosecution of the litigation
during the relevant time period, which equates to approximately
30% of the available settlement funds. To compensate the named
plaintiffs for their time and expenses in litigating the action,
Plaintiffs' Counsel have requested that the Court approve an
"incentive award of $3,500 for each of the four named plaintiffs,
totaling $14,000."

Before the Court are:

     -- Plaintiffs' motions for "Final Approval of All Class
Settlements, Final Certification of Settlement Class, and Final
Approval of Plan Allocation" and for "Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel, and for
Incentive Awards to Representative Plaintiffs"; and

     -- Arlene M. Davies and Jerilean Roberts' objections to the
motion for final approval of the class settlements.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Qhcz01 from Leagle.com, Judge Shipp found that:

     (1) the proposed the Settlement Class meets the requirements
of Rule 23;

     (2) the approximately 30% fee that is sought by counsel falls
within the range of awards approved in similar cases; and

     (3) the requested incentive award of $3,500 is within the
range of reasonableness of comparable incentive awards in courts
in the Circuit.

Additional information on the case is available at:

               http://www.njtaxliensettlements.com/

Todd R. Zahn, et al. are represented by Dennis J. Drasco, Esq. --
ddrasco@lumlaw.com -- LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC

Jeanne Van Duzer Lang Boyer, et al. are represented by Andrew R.
Wolf, Esq. -- davidwolfwest@icloud.com -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC -
- Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq. -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com --
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC; Mark R. Cuker, Esq. --
mcuker@wcblegal.com -- WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY

Samuel W. Ledford, et al. are represented by Patricia Mulvoy
Kipnis, Esq. -- pkipnis@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP

            -- and --

      William A. Riback, Esq.
      WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC
      132 N. Haddon Ave.,
      Haddonfield, NJ 08033
      Tel:(856)857-0008

            -- and --

      Michael Raymond Mignogna, Esq.
      MATTLEMAN, WEINROTH & MILLER, P.C.
      401 Route 70 (Marlton Pike) East, Suite 100
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856)242-7252

Robert W. Stein is represented by Jeffrey Saul Feldman, Esq. --
mjfmediation@gmail.com -- FRIEDMAN SCHUMAN APPLEBAUM & NEMEROFF,
P.C.

Crusader Servicing Corp., et al. are represented by Christopher
Iannicelli, Esq. -- christopher.iannicelli@morganlewis.com -- and
-- R. Brendan Fee, Esq. -- brendan.fee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

David M. Farber, 12-4050 is represented by:

      Steven Mark Janove, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEVE M. JANOVE, LLC
      30 S 17th St #9
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel:(215)564-4605


NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Acosta" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alexandro Acosta, et al., filed an appeal from a
District Court order and a judgment, both dated September 22,
2016, in their lawsuit styled Acosta v. New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 15-cv-4587, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The other Plaintiffs-Appellants are Gladys Alvarez, Andrea
Antigua, Nechelle Armstead, Susana Arroyo, Erika Batista, Vilma
Bernudez, April Black, Mariana Bonifacio de Ortiz, Silvia Brito,
Chanelle Brown, Santiago Cabrera, Karina Cadle, Claudia Cardoso,
Xiomara Casso, Ana Castillo, Carolina Nunez Cepeda, Amalfis Cerda,
Maritza Chirino, Juan Contreras, Sharon Cross, Jose Cruz, Xenia
Cruz, Edith Cuattle, Jamel Davis, Jessie Davis, Tanya Dejesus,
Cedric Dew, Jr., Magdalena Espinoza, Maria Fermin, Rosa Fermin,
Gafratu Flatiou, Antonio Flores, Nominato Fofana, Rubyatou Fofana,
Miledy Frias, Danny Fuentes, Carmen Garces, Beatriz Garcia, Sharon
Gardenhire, Carlos Gonzalez, Isabelle Gonzalez, Judna Gonzalez,
Maria Gonzalez de Espinal, Rosanna Grullon, Marino Guaba, Margaret
Guadalupe, Linda Guerrido, Miguel Guzman, Laureen Hall, Lydia
Hampton, Freddy Henriquez, Javier Hernandez, Stephanie Hernandez,
Jenny Hidalgo, Daniel Itesha, Nicholas Jones, Doussou Keita, David
Kelly, Gloria Khan, Kelly Landsman, Maria Leonardo, Liana
Lipedusi, Sonia Lizardo, Erickson Lopez, Sandra Lopez, Chanel
Lora, Fany Lucero, Neftali Maldonado, Deysi Mancebo, Taysha
Manners, Chiffon Marshall, Catalina Martinez, Keilyn Martinez,
Marlene Martinez, Rosanna Martinez, Wriley McInnis, Ynelda Mejia
de Velasquez, Dina Mena, Feliciano Mendez, Grace Mensah, Gissell
Miranda, Devaughn Morgan, Carlos Mosquera, Roberto Munoz, Wandalis
Nunez, Margarita Olmedo, Lucrecia Ortiz, Terry Outlaw, Flor
Paulino, Roberto Paulino, Juan Peguero, Carmen Perez, Diana B.
Perez, Franklin Perez, Yahaira Perez de Castillo, Misael Portillo,
Inez Quezada, Flor Ramirez, Herminia Reyes, Beatrice Richardson,
Jacqueline Rivera, Jocelyn Rodriguez, Ludenny Montilla Rodriguez,
Rosio Rodriguez, Yinaira Rodriguez, Carmen Romero, Esperanza
Romero, Nidia Rosario, Myrna Sanchez, Oneida Santos, Lubertha
Simmons, Altagracia Sosa, Luscrida Soto, Safiatou Soumah, Dionada
Suarez, Maria Taveras, Digno Tejada, Lilian Tejeda, Ologario
Teutle, Ramon Torres, Fatou Tounkara, Fatoumata Tounkara, Makale
Tounkara, Mohammed Touray, Crystal Turner, Norma Valera, Susana
Vargas, Robert Villegas, Albacely Vilorio de Reyes, Raymunda
Vivaldo, Melody Walker, Hellenna Williams, Gail Wilson, Zoila de
Luna, Carmen de la Cruz and Lissette del C. Medina.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Acosta v. New York City Board
of Education, Case No. 16-3585, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Laura Dawn Barbieri, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (914) 819-3387

Defendant-Appellee New York City Board of Education is represented
by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov

Defendant-Appellee Success Academy Charter Schools, New York City,
is represented by:

          William H. Voth, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 715-1006
          E-mail: william.voth@aporter.com


NEW YORK, USA: Rold Appeals Order in Barcia v. Insurance Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor William J. Rold filed an appeal from a District Court
stipulation & order, dated October 4, 2016, which relates to the
lawsuit originally filed on October 26, 1979, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City), and
titled Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 79-cv-5831.

Louis Sitkin was sued individually and as Chairman of the New York
State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.  The consolidated class
actions challenged the practices and procedures of the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, a body established by the
State of New York to determine eligibility for unemployment
benefits.

The appellate case is captioned as Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 16-
3575, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Nidia Barcia, Municipal Labor Committee,
Kettely Laraque, Michael Wernham, Charles Rosa, Soso Liang Lo,
Joan Miller, John Paulsen, Esperanza Polanco and Joyce Glotzer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David Alan Raff, Esq.
          RAFF & BECKER, LLP
          470 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 732-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 732-0270
          E-mail: raffd@raffbecker.com

Defendants-Appellees Louis Sitkin, Individually and as Chairman of
the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; James R.
Rhone, Individually and as members of the New York State
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Arthur Strauss, Individually
and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board; Harry Zankel, Individually and as members of the New York
State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Douglas Pugh,
Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board; Philip Ross, Individually and as
Industrial Commissioner of the State Of New York; New York State
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and New York State Department
of Labor are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov

Intervenor-Appellant William J. Rold is represented by:

          Jane Becker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
          P.O. Box 9023914
          San Juan, PR 00902
          Telephone: (787) 585-3824


NEWBY ISLAND: San Jose Planning Commission Review Odor Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mercury News reports that the San Jose Planning Commission
will review a finalized odor report related to the Newby Island
Landfill and Resource Recovery Park, which wants to expand its
facility upward by nearly 100 feet.

If approved as recommended by that city's planning staff, the
commission could deny City of Milpitas' appeal -- based largely on
odor complaints from surrounding residents as well as city
officials -- to prevent the vertical expansion of the dump at its
352 gross acre site at 1601 Dixon Landing Road in San Jose, near
the Milpitas border.

The final odor study as well as the ongoing community debate
regarding the dump's planned expansion stem in part from an appeal
Milpitas filed in 2014 of San Jose Planning Department's approval
of a permit allowing the landfill to grow by 95 vertical feet.
Under that proposal, Republic Services of Santa Clara County plans
to increase the capacity of its landfill by approximately 15.12
million cubic yards and extend its estimated closure date until
January 2041.  The landfill's current closure date is 2025.

Besides paying for the city-directed odor report, Republic also
looked to reduce impacts to the surrounding area.  In April 2015,
San Jose planning staff noted the dump operator added conditions
to the permit which would mitigate operational impacts beyond what
the permit required, including reducing the size of the open face
to no more than 1 acre; weather and wind monitoring and no turning
of compost windrows at certain wind speeds; no outdoor storage of
putrescible materials for the recyclery or composting operation;
and annual odor misting evaluation and expansion of the misting
system (the mist contains odor neutralizers).

Still, many in Milpitas are upset over the continued presence of a
landfill. Notably, in 2012, Evans Law Firm of San Francisco, in
conjunction with Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin PC, sued Republic
Services (named in the suit as International Disposal Corp. of
California) over the San Jose landfill on behalf of Milpitas
residents Peter Ng and Dolly Wu and thousands of other unnamed
residents.

In July, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan
finalized approval of a class-action settlement, ending years of
litigation involving the landfill.  Under that settlement,
Republic agreed to create a $1.2 million fund to be disbursed
among 6,800 households mostly in a 1.5-mile radius from the
landfill's composting facility, which Dubin's law firm claims is
the main source of odors.

Moreover, the final settlement proposed to either close or
dramatically alter the composting facility operation by Dec. 31,
2017.  In addition to paying $1.2 million in damages to nearby
households, Republic Services -- which admitted no fault in this
class-action case -- agreed to provide $2.75 million for
injunctive relief to mitigate odors. Portions of that money would
be used to modify or improve gas collection at the compost
facility and make other "state-of-the-art improvements" over the
next five years, according to the settlement.

The planning commission meeting was set to begina at 6:30 p.m. on
Oct. 26 at San Jose City Hall's Council Chambers, 200 E. Santa
Clara St., San Jose.


NOVARTIS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Face Pay Equity Suit Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that when
David Sanford earned a record $250 million jury verdict for a sex
discrimination and gender pay class-action in 2010, he made more
than history.  He outlined a business plan for a practice many
lawyers say can be a difficult business: Taking on the gender pay
gap.

The huge result on behalf of women pharmaceutical sales
representatives working for Novartis, which ended with a $175
million settlement and $38.5 million in attorney fees, has helped
Mr. Sanford's firm, Sanford Heisler, develop perhaps the largest
practice in the country trying to remedy that stubborn statistic
that shows women's median income in 2014 was 79 percent of men's
in the U.S. workforce.

Despite the potential for large payouts, the pervasiveness of the
gender pay gap and the rising level of attention being paid to it,
there is disagreement among lawyers in this space that there is a
business case for plaintiffs lawyers to bring a tide of Equal Pay
Act cases.

Attorneys in the area, including Mr. Sanford, say the economics of
these cases can still be difficult to justify in the face of
recent case law that makes it more difficult to certify a class of
women.  And practical hurdles limit the number of cases as well.
Speaking up about pay disparities still often leads to
retaliation.  And the costs can be great.  A large class-action
against Goldman Sachs, for example, failed earlier this year.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has made it very difficult
for law firms to view this as a profitable practice," Mr. Sanford
said. "The risks are very great."

Yet others are optimistic that the raising social awareness will
lead to more cases.  Lori Andrus, whose California firm this year
reached a $4 million settlement on behalf of women lawyers at
Farmers Insurance, has been making the case up and down the Golden
State that more attorneys should be bringing cases under the Equal
Pay Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"I'm not discouraged," Ms. Andrus said of recent cases in
employers' favor, such as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dukes
v. Wal-Mart that said the women Wal-Mart employees in the case
were not similar enough to form a class.  "It's 2016.  I'm fed
up."

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is another firm that has found
success in this area, often partnering with Outten & Golden as co-
lead counsel on national class-actions against large companies.
The firms settled a case against Morgan Stanley for $39 million
and are currently paired up on a lawsuit against Microsoft Corp.,
alleging gender discrimination against female technical employees
at the company.

But a case the firms brought against Goldman Sachs highlights the
risks in the practice for plaintiffs firms.

The suit claimed female vice presidents earned 21 percent less
than male colleagues while female associates earned 8 percent
less.  The suit also alleged that about 23 percent fewer female
vice presidents were promoted to a managing director position than
males.

But in March, a U.S. magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York recommended the class not be
certified.  In a report calling it a "close case," Magistrate
Judge James Francis IV said the cause of the gender pay disparity
was unlikely to be proved by common promotion and compensation
policies at the bank.

Questions around the women's skills, the nature of their work and
the profitability of the business units they worked in would all
play into the firm's promotion decisions, Judge Francis wrote,
"effectively swamp(ing) the common question of whether the
evaluative policies have, on average, a discriminatory impact."

The case was filed in 2010 and the U.S. district judge affirmed
the magistrate's recommendation in June of this year.  While it's
unclear how much that case cost the firms up to that point,
similar litigation suggests these cases require a large investment
by the plaintiff.

In the Novartis case, which was litigated over a similar five-
plus-year timeframe, 68 Sanford Heisler timekeepers spent nearly
37,000 hours on the case, court records show.  That time was
valued at $16 million.

If there is reason to believe more Equal Pay Act claims will be
brought in the near future, a recent settlement reached by Sanford
Heisler with tech giant Qualcomm may be Exhibit A.

Qualcomm settled the would-be class action for $19.5 million (and
$5.85 million in attorney fees) before the plaintiffs filed their
complaint, potentially signaling an increased willingness on
corporations' behalf to be seen as proactive in closing the gender
pay gap.  Sanford Heisler called the settlement reached before a
class was certified "literally unparalleled."

Companies have also begun announcing pay changes for women without
the impetus of a lawsuit.  Web domain provider GoDaddy lists its
gender pay statistics publicly. Salesforce.com Inc. similarly
provides that data for its employees and says it spent $3 million
last year equalizing its women employees' salaries to their male
counterparts'.

One common characteristic among those companies that may help spur
their action is their California headquarters.  The state last
year passed an updated version of the Equal Pay Act that makes it
easier for women to prevail in lawsuits.  For instance, the new
law shifts the burden to explain the pay gap from the employee to
the employer.

That law may prove helpful in a case brought in California by
Chicago-based Sedgwick partner Traci Ribeiro against her firm,
alleging sex discrimination.

Sharon Vinick, Ms. Ribeiro's California-based lawyer who also sued
the Oakland Raiders on behalf of their cheerleading squad, said
the new law in California may make these cases more favorable for
employees.  But she was unsure that it would lead to an influx of
law firms seeing the gender pay gap as a lucrative practice.
Apart from a few national plaintiffs firms, the majority of cases
are handled by local labor and employment attorneys in small
firms, she said.  But a reputation in the field is always just one
big case away.

"In general there are people bringing these cases like me,
swinging away and trying to do the best work for our clients, and
our name comes to the top when the work is sexy like the Raiders
case or high-profile like Traci's case," Ms. Vinick said.


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Jimenez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., O'Reilly Automotive Stores,
Inc., and CSK Auto Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Gabriel Jimenez v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:12-cv-00310-AG-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Gabriel Jimenez v. O'Reilly
Automotive, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-80161, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent GABRIEL JIMENEZ, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, is represented by:

          Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
          ROGER R. CARTER LAW OFFICES
          2030 Main St.
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Scott Bradley Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
          Irvine, CA 92604
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave.
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          2030 Main Street
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4735
          Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
          E-mail: marchannanphelps@gmail.com

Defendants-Petitioners O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., O'REILLY
AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., CSK AUTO INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, are represented by:

          Rachel E. Moffitt, Esq.
          John Marcher Morris, Esq.
          James M. Peterson, Esq.
          Jason Conroy Ross, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
          401 West A Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
          E-mail: moffittr@higgslaw.com
                  morrisj@higgslaw.com
                  peterson@higgslaw.com
                  rossj@higgslaw.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Settles Investors' Car Wash Scandal Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kiernan, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Brazilian state oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA has agreed to
settle lawsuits from Pacific Investment Management Co. and three
other investors who alleged they were harmed by a corruption
scheme that funneled billions of dollars from the company.

Petrobras' board approved agreements with investment funds managed
by Pimco, Dodge & Cox, Janus Capital Group and Al Shams
Investments Ltd., the company said on Oct. 21, marking the first
time it has settled with investors who sued in the wake of the so-
called Car Wash scandal.  The company added that it expects to
take a provision of $353 million against its third-quarter
earnings to cover these and other deals that are being discussed.

Though Pimco, a unit of German insurer Allianz SE, is one of
Petrobras' largest bondholders and Dodge & Cox is among its
biggest private stockholders, the oil company has a lot of
negotiating left to do.  It is still defending itself against 23
individual lawsuits.  In addition, it faces one class-action suit
claiming tens of billions of dollars in damages on behalf of
dozens of plaintiffs, including the New York City firefighters'
pension fund, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and investment
giants such as Aberdeen Asset Management.

The lawsuits threaten Petrobras' high-stakes plan to reduce its
$123.9 billion debt pile, the largest in the global oil industry.
The company needs to strike a delicate balance of selling assets
and reducing expenditures while maintaining sufficiently robust
oil production to pay off more than $50 billion in debt coming due
over the next three years or so.  If it fails, Petrobras could be
forced to dilute existing shareholders, seek a government bailout
or restructure.

At the heart of its troubles -- and the lawsuits -- is a
corruption scandal that has taken down some of the most powerful
figures in Brazil's business and political establishment in recent
years.

Contractors including Brazil's largest construction firms formed a
cartel to drive up prices for ships, refineries and other
Petrobras projects.  In exchange for the inflated contracts, the
contractors bribed high-level Petrobras executives, according to
testimony from several participants in the scheme who entered plea
deals.  Prosecutors documented the witnesses' accounts with
extensive paper trails linking former Petrobras executives and
contractors to shell companies and Swiss bank accounts.  Dozens of
politicians and businessmen have been jailed, some of them with
lengthy prison sentences.

Petrobras insists it was a victim of the scheme and said the
settlements reached "do not constitute any acknowledgment of
responsibility."

But investors say Petrobras was responsible. Senior company
executives admitted to taking bribes in exchange for granting
overpriced contracts.  While the scheme was going on, Petrobras
publicly countered allegations of irregularities, releasing
communiques saying that its procurement process was transparent
and competitive.  In addition, the lawsuits allege, Petrobras
churned out years of misleading financial statements that failed
to account for bribe payments and overstated its assets and
earnings.

"In 2008, Petrobras was the world's fifth-largest company with a
market valuation of $310 billion," Pimco alleged in its complaint,
filed in October 2015.  "Now, with the revelation of Petrobras'
rampant money-laundering and kickback scheme, Petrobras has a
market capitalization of just $33.13 billion."

Petrobras shares have rebounded in recent months, as the
impeachment of former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff brought a
management shake-up to the company and more investor-friendly
policies from the government.  As of Oct. 21, its market
capitalization stood at $77.3 billion, according to FactSet.

But the company on Oct. 21 said "it isn't possible for Petrobras
to make a reliable estimate on the outcome of the class action."

Petrobras said it "will continue firmly defending itself in the
remaining lawsuits under way and has the objective of eliminating
the uncertainties, onus and costs associated with continuing these
disputes."


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Law Firm Expands Class Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Oct. 24 disclosed that it
has filed a complaint expanding the class period in the class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
investors who acquired Polaris Industries Inc. ("Polaris" or the
"Company") securities between February 20, 2015, and September 11,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors have until
November 15, 2016 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose adverse facts regarding Polaris's
business and financial results, including that: (1) a material
amount of Polaris vehicles were subject to a safety recall that
would degrade the Polaris brand; (2) the safety recalls would
subject to the Company to large potential liabilities, including
an expensive and complicated repair process as well as loss of
goodwill; (3) the recalls jeopardized the Company's future
revenues and profitability; (4) the Company overstated its
full-year 2016 guidance; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Polaris's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Polaris securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than November 15, 2016 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.


POWER HOME: Settles Class Action Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a
home remodeling company will pay $5.2 million to settle a class
action lawsuit for making numerous unsolicited phone calls to over
1 million people.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania approved the settlement on Oct. 12 between Power Home
Remodeling and those who received the calls.  The judge's decision
notes that the company already changed its business practices
regarding calls to cellphones.

"We approve the negotiated settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate after finding immediate changes in the sales-lead
company's business practices on cellphone sales calls and an
opportunity to file a claim to recover damages," Judge Kearney
wrote in his opinion.  "We further award 25 percent of the common
fund recovery as attorney fees, and approve the capped
administrative costs incurred by the claims administrator and
class counsel."

The litigation started after Teofilo Vasco gave his cellphone
number to a salesperson while shopping at Home Depot.  He claimed
Power Home Remodeling called him 21 times after that. Vasco
consulted an attorney and filed suit under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Power Home initially argued that the statute of limitations
expired on Vasco's claims and cited a lack of intent to violate
the act.

After a sampling of call records were provided by Power Home,
"Vasco learned of over 1.1 million potential class members through
informal discovery," Judge Kearney said.  "As a result of the
litigation, Power Home modified its business practices on consent
and cellphone calls."

A settlement agreement was reached after mediation in December
2015.  Of the $5.2 million, Power Home agreed to pay $1.3 million
in attorney fees, up to $20,000 in litigation expenses, up to
$5,000 for Vasco's service award and up to $1.2 million in notice
and administrative costs.

However, Judge Kearney said Mr. Vasco's service fee would be
reduced to $3,000.

Judge Kearney added that only four people out of more than a
million claimants objected to the settlement.

"The settlement agreement is entitled to the presumption of
fairness, in part because the parties negotiated it at arm's
length with the benefit of an experienced mediator over two days.
The fairness considerations weigh in favor of settlement," Kearney
said.

Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- a Berger & Montague attorney
in Philadelphia representing the plaintiffs, did not immediately
return a call seeking comment.

John Shea -- shea@litchfieldcavo.com -- of Litchfield Cavo in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, represented Power Home and did not
immediately return a call seeking comment.


RL REPPERT: Askew Appeals From E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Derrick Askew filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Derrick Askew v. R.L. Reppert, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5-11-cv-04003, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 21,
2016, District Judge James Knoll Gardner narrows claims in the
lawsuit.  In June 17, 2011, plaintiff Derrick Askew filed a six-
count class action complaint against the Defendants alleging,
among other things, violations of the document production
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

In his adjudication dated September 30, 2016, a copy of which is
available at https://goo.gl/W8ecyO from Leagle.com, Judge Gardner,
among other things, held that as to Count One with respect to the
Plaintiff's class action complaint, Reppert, Inc., is not liable
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c)(1) for any failure to produce any
other custodial agreements for the 401(k) Plan apart from a
custodial agreement with Nationwide Trust Company, FSB.

The appellate case is captioned as Derrick Askew v. R.L. Reppert,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3924, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DERRICK ASKEW, for himself and as
representative of similarly situated employees, is represented by:

          Kent Cprek, Esq.
          Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
          Maureen Marra, Esq.
          JENNINGS SIGMOND PC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 351-0615
          E-mail: kcprek@jslex.com
                  mgelman@jslex.com
                  mmarra@jslex.com

Defendants-Appellees RL REPPERT INC., RICHARD REPPERT, TIMOTHY J.
REPPERT, RL REPPERT INC. EMPLOYEES PROFIT SHARING 401K PLAN, RL
REPPERT INC. MONEY PURCHASE PLAN, (DAVIS BACON PLAN), RL REPPERT
INC. MEDICAL PLAN and RL REPPERT INC. HRA MEDICAL EXPENSE
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN are represented by:

          Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Esq.
          FLAMM WALTON HEIMBACH & LAMM PC
          794 Penllyn Pike
          Blue Bell, PA 19446
          Telephone: (267) 419-1501
          E-mail: whflamm@flammlaw.com

Third Party-Appellee CALIFORNIA PENSION ADMINISTRATORS &
CONSULTANTS INC. is represented by:

          Robert M. Cavalier, Esq.
          Daniel S. Strick, Esq.
          LUCAS & CAVALIER LLC
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 1500
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 751-9192
          E-mail: rcavalier@lucascavalier.com
                  dstrick@lucascavalier.com

Third Party-Appellee KISTLER TIFFANY BENEFITS CORP. is represented
by:

          Patricia A. Fecile-Moreland, Esq.
          MARKS O'NEIL O'BRIEN DOHERTY AND KELLY, P.C.
          1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-6688
          E-mail: pmoreland@moodklaw.com

               - and -

          David P. Helwig, Esq.
          MARKS O'NEIL O'BRIEN DOHERTY AND KELLY, P.C.
          707 Grant Street
          2600 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 467-2026
          E-mail: dhelwig@moodklaw.com


RHYTHM 'N BALLOON: Several Unpaid Vendors Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Dempsey, writing for KSHB, reports that vendors who claim they
still haven't been paid for the Rhythm 'N Balloon Festival say a
class action lawsuit may be filed against the event organizers.

The Rhythm 'N Balloons event was supposed to held in late August
at Hodge Park, but on the last day of the three-day event,
organizers canceled the festivities for "unforeseen circumstances
related to the weather."

Nearly two months later, several vendors said they still had not
been paid.

"We were expecting massive crowds and there was nothing,"
explained popcorn vendor Michael Anderson.  "We lost all that
money.  We had all this product and couldn't use it."

Mr. Anderson said many vendors lost thousands of dollars as a
result of the lack of business and no paycheck.

As a result, Mr. Anderson said the impact of the event
cancellation reached beyond the festival weekend.

"Moving forward, it affected us," he said.  "That was money taken
away from that next show.  It had to come out of our personal
pockets."

Other people associated with the event, including an undercover
KCPD officer who provided security for the festival, said they too
had not yet been paid.

Around half a dozen vendors contacted by 41 Action News said a
possible class action lawsuit was being planned against the event
organizers as a source of recourse.

Details of the possible lawsuit were not revealed, but
Mr. Anderson said he hoped it would help the vendors get paid
back.

"If anything, give us our money back," he said. "(It would
provide) vindication for a lot of them (vendors).  I didn't lose
as much as a lot of other people did."

41 Action News stopped by the Leawood home of Rhythm 'N Balloons
organizers Steve and Roberta Small on Oct. 24.

No one answered the door and calls have not been returned.

Their home now sits for sale for more than $500,000.  A real
estate agent said the home went on a sale about a month after the
event's cancellation.

Regardless if he gets his money back, Mr. Anderson said the Rhythm
'N Balloons experience this year would make him take a closer look
at event organizers.

"We're going to go into future festivals looking at them
(organizers) a little harder," he said.


SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Galvan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louise W. Flanagan granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of two classes filed in the lawsuit
entitled LUIS ANTONIA ARELLANO GALVAN, JOSE ALFREDO AVILA TORRES
and RAFAEL AARON BRITO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF NC,
INC., SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT #2 OF LUMBERTON, INC., SAN JOSE
MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF PRMBROKE, NC, INC., ALBERTO FLORES TOLEDANO
and EDGARDO FLORES PEREZ, Case No. 7:16-cv-00039-FL (E.D.N.C.).

     The Tipped Worker Class will include:

     All individuals who worked as tipped employees of one or
     more defendants during any pay period falling within the
     three chronological years immediately preceding March 10,
     2016 and continuing thereafter through the date on which
     final judgment is entered in the action and who timely file
     (or have already filed) a written consent to be a party to
     this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 (b).


     The Salary Class will include:

     All individuals who were paid a flat weekly wage as
     employees of one or more defendants during any pay period
     falling within the three chronological years immediately
     preceding March 10, 2016 and continuing thereafter through
     the date on which final judgment is entered in this action
     and who timely file (or have already filed) a written
     consent to be a party to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
     Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs brought the Case over alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Flanagan opined that no subclasses will be certified,
although the parties may raise a motion for certification of
subclasses if and when they deem appropriate.  Judge Flanagan
appoints Clermont F. Ripley, Esq., of the Wake County bar as class
counsel.

The Court also directs the Plaintiffs to submit an amended
proposed Notice of Class Action within 14 days to bring it in
compliance with the order, accompanied by a motion to approve the
same.  The Defendants may file a response within 7 days of the
filing of any such motion and proposed Notice of Class Action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9vohjJ5E

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          PO Box 28068
          224 S. Dawson St.
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 856-2570
          Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
          E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org


SCALLY'S LUBE: "Pascual" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
Martin Pascual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Scally's Lube & Go Towing & Recovery, LLC and Robert
Scally, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00636 (M.D.
Fla., October 27, 2016), seeks minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and relief as available under Florida
common law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a tow truck driver
operating in and around Marion County, Florida. He routinely
worked more than 70 hours or more in a work week without being
paid minimum wages for all the hours in excess of 40.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


SLATER & GORDON: Chairman Steps Down From Super Retail Board
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shapiro, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that John Skippen, the chairman of embattled law firm Slater &
Gordon has retired from the board of Super Retail Group.

Mr. Skippen, who was set to face opposition from proxy advisors
after his re-election to the board, informed his fellow directors
of his decision on Oct. 24, ahead of the company's annual general
meeting, and it was announced to the market as the meeting began.

"The board will miss John's wise counsel," said Super Retail
chairman Robert Wright in the address.  Mr. Skippen was appointed
a director in 2008 and chaired the audit and risk committee from
2009.

Mr. Skippen's resignation led to the resolution to reappoint him
being withdrawn.  Of the votes cast, 56 per cent, were in favor of
his re-election while 43 per cent of all eligible votes abstained.

It is understood Mr. Skippen faced strong opposition from certain
institutional shareholders to retaining his role, which was one of
the items put to a shareholder vote ahead of the meeting.

Part of the opposition to the re-election of the 68-year old
former Harvey Norman finance chief, was his role at Slater &
Gordon.

Mr. Skippen, as chairman of Slater & Gordon, oversaw one of the
most ill-fated acquisitions in Australian corporate history.  The
law firm paid $1.3 billion in March 2015 to acquire the
professional services division of Quindell, only to book a $890
million write-down within 12 months.

His decision to step down, however, is believed to be related to
the time and attention required at Slater & Gordon as it fends off
a $250 million shareholder class action and nurses itself back to
financial health, after securing concessions from its bankers.
Mr. Skippen also serves as chair of financial services firm
Flexigroup.

Two recently appointed directors -- Launa Inman and Diana Eilert
were re-elected to the board.

Sport and leisure goods retailer Super Retail Group said it had
made a solid start to the 2017 financial year, with profit in line
with budget.

Group sales had been below expectations, but had been offset by
supply chain developments and cost control, chief executive
Peter Birtles said in a statement.

The company's shares fell as much as 3.1 per cent to $10.27.

Super Retail said sales in its Amart Sports and Rebel stores sport
division had been "pleasing" in the 16 weeks to October 22, with
the sports divisions sales up 7 per cent overall and 4.5 per cent
on a like-for-like basis, compared with the same period last year.

Sales from its auto division, dominated by Supercheap Auto, were
"solid", growing 3.5 per cent in total and 2.5 per cent
like-for-like, although tool sales had been hurt by hardware
competitors' clearance sales.

Clearance of inventory as it closed Ray's Outdoors stores boosted
like-for-like sales there but dampened growth across its BCF and
new-format Rays stores.  Overall, sales in the leisure division
were up just 1.5 per cent and 6 per cent on a like-for-like basis.

Super Retail expected to open 15 new stores in the auto division,
14 new BCF stores and another 14 in the sports division this
financial year.


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Faces Class Action Over Collection Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a proposed
class action filed in federal court seeks to recover damages from
Princeton law firm Schachter Portnoy for allegedly filing a high
volume of collection suits without meaningful attorney review of
the facts in each case.

Schachter Portnoy filed a collections suit against the named
plaintiff in the case, Dzmitry Hrushkouski, after the statute of
limitations on the debt had run out, according to the complaint,
lodged on behalf of similarly situated litigants.

The state court collections suit was dismissed after
Mr. Hrushkouski's counsel raised a statute of limitations defense,
but unsophisticated consumers lack the knowledge to determine the
statute of limitations applicable to the debt and may not be aware
that such a defense can be used, the suit claims.  Commencing suit
on a time-barred debt has been held to be unjust and unfair as a
matter of public policy and an unfair and unconscionable means of
collecting a debt, according to the suit, which is captioned
Hrushkouski v. Schachter Portnoy.

The class suit claims that a Schachter Portnoy attorney who
brought the collection action, Steven I. Greenberg, had not
"drafted or carefully reviewed" it and had not "conducted an
inquiry, reasonable under the circumstances, sufficient to form a
good faith belief that the claims and legal contentions in the
[collection complaint] were supported by fact and warranted by
law," in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The collections action, filed in state court in Middlesex County
in October 2015 by Cavalry SPV I, stemmed from a $4,195 debt
Mr. Hrushkowski incurred on a Chase credit card.

Cavalry SPV I is "regularly engaged in the collection of debts by
purchasing portfolios of defaulted, charged-off open-ended
consumer credit accounts for pennies on the dollar of their face
value," the complaint states.  It regularly hires law firms such
as Schachter Portnoy to file suits on its behalf against the
debtors on the accounts it has acquired, the complaint said.
Mr. Hrushkouski initially filed an answer in that case pro se but
later retained counsel who asserted the statute of limitations
defense.  After a trial in May, Superior Court Judge J. Randall
Corman dismissed the collection suit with prejudice after finding
that it was commenced after the debt's statute of limitations
under Delaware law has expired.  The judge applied a contract
clause on the Chase cardholder agreement that Delaware law applied
in the case.

"Honest disclosure of the legal unenforceability of the collection
action due to the time elapsed after the bank's claim accrued
would have foiled defendants' efforts to collect the debt.  By the
collection complaint's demand for judgment, defendant
misrepresented the status of the debt and misled the least
sophisticated consumer as to the viability of the debt and the
collection action," the suit claims.

Chase charged off the debt in 2010 and sold it to a company called
Equable Ascent Financial in 2011, the suit claims.  In 2013,
Equable sold thousands of accounts, including the plaintiffs, to
Cavalry, according to the suit.

Schachter Portnoy, a nine-lawyer firm, maintains an office with
the same street address in Valhalla, New York as Cavalry SPV I,
but a different suite number, the complaint states.

Philip Stern of Stern Thomasson in Springfield, representing
Mr. Hrushkouski, did not return reporters' calls.  Nor did the
principals of Schachter Portnoy, Howard Schachter and Darin
Portnoy.


SCHMIDT BAKING: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Schilling" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ronald J. Schilling, Jr., Russell E. Dolan and Jonathan
A. Hecker filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Ronald Schilling, Jr. v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02498-JFM, in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour
Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Schilling, Jr. v.
Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Case No. 16-2213, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Initial forms are due within 14 days;

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 29, 2016;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on January 3, 2017.

Plaintiffs-Appellants RONALD J. SCHILLING, JR., RUSSELL E. DOLAN
and JONATHAN A. HECKER, Individually and On Behalf of Other
Similarly Situated Employees, are represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Amber Nicole Jackson, Esq.
          Anthony Walter Kraus, Esq.
          Kathleen Pontone, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 727-6464
          E-mail: ajackson@milesstockbridge.com
                  akraus@milesstockbridge.com
                  kpontone@milesstockbridge.com


SLATER & GORDON: Chairman Steps Down From Super Retail Board
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shapiro, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that John Skippen, the chairman of embattled law firm Slater &
Gordon has retired from the board of Super Retail Group.

Mr. Skippen, who was set to face opposition from proxy advisors
after his re-election to the board, informed his fellow directors
of his decision on Oct. 24, ahead of the company's annual general
meeting, and it was announced to the market as the meeting began.

"The board will miss John's wise counsel," said Super Retail
chairman Robert Wright in the address.  Mr. Skippen was appointed
a director in 2008 and chaired the audit and risk committee from
2009.

Mr. Skippen's resignation led to the resolution to reappoint him
being withdrawn.  Of the votes cast, 56 per cent, were in favor of
his re-election while 43 per cent of all eligible votes abstained.

It is understood Mr. Skippen faced strong opposition from certain
institutional shareholders to retaining his role, which was one of
the items put to a shareholder vote ahead of the meeting.

Part of the opposition to the re-election of the 68-year old
former Harvey Norman finance chief, was his role at Slater &
Gordon.

Mr. Skippen, as chairman of Slater & Gordon, oversaw one of the
most ill-fated acquisitions in Australian corporate history.  The
law firm paid $1.3 billion in March 2015 to acquire the
professional services division of Quindell, only to book a $890
million write-down within 12 months.

His decision to step down, however, is believed to be related to
the time and attention required at Slater & Gordon as it fends off
a $250 million shareholder class action and nurses itself back to
financial health, after securing concessions from its bankers.
Mr. Skippen also serves as chair of financial services firm
Flexigroup.

Two recently appointed directors -- Launa Inman and Diana Eilert
were re-elected to the board.

Sport and leisure goods retailer Super Retail Group said it had
made a solid start to the 2017 financial year, with profit in line
with budget.

Group sales had been below expectations, but had been offset by
supply chain developments and cost control, chief executive
Peter Birtles said in a statement.

The company's shares fell as much as 3.1 per cent to $10.27.

Super Retail said sales in its Amart Sports and Rebel stores sport
division had been "pleasing" in the 16 weeks to October 22, with
the sports divisions sales up 7 per cent overall and 4.5 per cent
on a like-for-like basis, compared with the same period last year.

Sales from its auto division, dominated by Supercheap Auto, were
"solid", growing 3.5 per cent in total and 2.5 per cent
like-for-like, although tool sales had been hurt by hardware
competitors' clearance sales.

Clearance of inventory as it closed Ray's Outdoors stores boosted
like-for-like sales there but dampened growth across its BCF and
new-format Rays stores.  Overall, sales in the leisure division
were up just 1.5 per cent and 6 per cent on a like-for-like basis.

Super Retail expected to open 15 new stores in the auto division,
14 new BCF stores and another 14 in the sports division this
financial year.


STARBUCKS CORP: Vondersaar Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Orlandis Hardy Jr., Bernard Taruc, Timothy Vondersaar
and Jaarome Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to
their lawsuit titled Timothy Vondersaar, et al. v. Starbucks
Corporation, Case No. 2:12-cv-05027-DDP-AJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit under the Americans with
Disabilities Act on behalf of disabled wheelchair and scooter
users, who have been adversely affected by high handoff counters
in Starbucks stores.

The appellate case is captioned as Timothy Vondersaar, et al. v.
Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 16-56555, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 18, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Orlandis Hardy Jr., Bernard
      Taruc, Timothy Vondersaar and Jaarome Wilson is due on
      March 28, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellee Starbucks Corporation is due on
      April 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants TIMOTHY VONDERSAAR, ORLANDIS HARDY, Jr.,
JAAROME WILSON, and BERNARD TARUC, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, are
represented by:

          James Kawahito, Esq.
          KAWAHITO SHRAGA & WESTRICK LLP
          1990 South Bundy Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5302
          E-mail: jkawahito@kswlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation, is represented by:

          Michael Chilleen, Esq.
          Gregory Francis Hurley, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com
                  ghurley@sheppardmullin.com


STEEL & TUBE: More Than 100 Homeowners Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz's Amanda Saxton, citing Sunday Star Times, reports
that more than 100 home-owners have joined a class action against
steel building mesh suppliers, as a Stuff investigation reveals
widespread concern about builders' cost-cutting.

Adina Thorn, the lawyer heading the proposed court case, is
calling for a government inquiry into dodgy mesh.  The questions
should be, "what has gone wrong, why, and recommend how to fix
it," she said.  "Experts suggest a new testing regime be
introduced for steel -- perhaps changes to the standards, perhaps
government audits on steel manufacturers and suppliers."

The 10-week investigation has identified three key problems:

   -- Unqualified tradesmen who just can't count: they under-quote
to get the job, measure badly, and cut corners;

  -- Cheap, substandard steel mesh for reinforcing concrete slabs,
some imported from China and Malaysia;

  -- Materials being bought on overseas websites like Ali Baba for
a fraction of their price at New Zealand hardware wholesalers and
retailers -- and without any of the quality certification.

One lower North Island home owner, who has joined Ms. Thorn's
class action, is infuriated her $700,000 dream home no longer
feels like hers because she has "no idea" what it's really made
of.  "I don't know what the implications of this steel business
will be -- our whole life savings are tied up in this house."

Jackie, a teacher and mother of two, didn't want her last name
used because she was anxious her house "would be labelled shoddy".

"It's been tainted because we have absolutely no idea what's in
it.  It doesn't feel like our own.  We were building a quality
house and absolutely would not have put in inferior steel," she
said.

"We were literally putting the mesh in at the time when we saw on
the news that it could be dodgy.  It makes you wonder what's the
value of any testing certificate."

Ms. Thorn says ductile steel reinforcing mesh, sometimes referred
to as welded wire fabric, is typically used as reinforcement in
concrete floor slabs.  Two months ago, the Government announced it
would toughen up the Building Code on 500E mesh testing
requirements in response to quality issues

One of the biggest players, Steel & Tube, has acknowledged
"oversights" in the certification of steel mesh it supplied.  The
Commerce Commission has investigated three further suppliers.

Steel & Tube did not reply to email or calls.

But in a leaked letter, Steel & Tube chief executive Dave Taylor
expresses confidence to shareholders that the company can stare
down the court action.  "We believe Steel & Tube's seismic mesh is
compliant, and therefore there can be no claim."

He says the company has talked to the Insurance Council, which has
indicated that any home-owners whose houses have been built with
sub-standard mesh in the past four years shouldn't be unduly
concerned about their insurance coverage.

The company's steel has also been used in pile casings in the new
$450 million Huntly bypass on the Waikato Expressway.  Civil
contractor Fulton Hogan commissioned tests after discovering
issues when it was building the massive infrastructure project for
the NZ Transport Agency.

In the leaked letter, Mr. Taylor says: "This was a specific
project-related issue, which Steel & Tube has resolved with the
joint venture."

The Sunday Star-Times inquiry has only reopened concerns about the
quality of cheap Chinese steel imports -- steel that is at the
centre of a proposed inquiry by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment.  Chinese diplomats sparked a furious
row when they threatened trade penalties against New Zealand
dairy, kiwifruit and wool exports, unless authorities here turned
a blind eye to local steel industry concerns.

Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith says he's not convinced
there is a significant problem in the building sector.

"But we must be vigilant and I keep an ear to the ground," he told
Stuff.  "The risk of poor quality is greater when the industry is
booming.  People desperate to get a tradesman end up with a
substandard one."

"It will always be a performance-based building code, that's not
changing.  But we are tightening it, for example testing
requirements for steel mesh."

As for Jackie and her partner, they built their designer home from
scratch, aiming for an energy efficient landmark.  She wanted a
place to play with her grandson.

"We were so excited about building this house, it was a dream come
true.  But actually it's just been a total nightmare," she said.

"I'm worried about the other products.  The plumbing, the nails,
the glass.  How can we know we've actually got what we paid for?
New Zealand should be better than this.  We should be able to
trust that our products are the real deal.

"Now I just feel so vulnerable.  In retrospect I wish we'd spent
the money on other things -- overseas holidays with the whole
family, perhaps."


STS CONSULTING: Lopez Seeks Certification of Inspectors Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Lopez moves to conditionally certify this group of
similarly situated employees so they may receive notice and have
the opportunity to join the action captioned JEREMY LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
STS CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00246-RWS-JDL (E.D.
Tex.):

     All current and former employees of STS Consulting Services,
     LLC ("STS") who held the job title of inspector or a similar
     title ("Inspector") in the United States in any workweek
     between three years prior to the date of the Court's Order
     and the present (the "FLSA Collective").

Mr. Lopez brought the action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated employees to recover alleged unlawfully
withheld overtime wages and related damages based on the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In his Motion, Mr. Lopez also asks the Court: (1) for order that
judicially-approved notice be sent to all Collective Members; (2)
to approve the form and content of his proposed judicial notice
and reminder notice; (3) to order STS to produce to his Counsel
the contact information for each Collective Member in a usable
electronic format; (4) to authorize notice to be sent via First
Class Mail and e-mail to the Collective Members pursuant to his
proposed notice plan; and (5) to require that STS post a copy of
the notice in appropriate, conspicuous, visible and accessible
places at each of its offices, shops, trailers, or other locations
in which Collective Members currently work during the 90-day opt-
in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VQcl74Ef

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net

               - and -

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


SYNGENTA: Appeals Ruling in Corn Farmers' Viptura Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonja Begemann, writing for Farm Journal, reports that claiming
the class action lawsuit over its Viptura brand is built on
"fundamental errors," Syngenta filed an appeal of a federal
judge's ruling allowing the class-action litigation to proceed.
The class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of U.S. corn
farmers seeks up to $5 billion from Syngenta for loss of income
stemming from marketing MIR162 (Agrisure Viptera) prior to Chinese
approval.

"We lost the Chinese market due to Syngenta's conduct, so
producers today are getting less [money] than they would," says
Don Downing, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs claim
China's rejection of U.S. corn with the then-unapproved Viptera
trait in 2013 led to an interruption in trade with China and
affected commodity prices, causing economic damages to farmers and
others affected by the markets.  Plaintiff lawyers say damages
could be as high as $5 to $7 billion by 2018.

Syngenta gave its own description of the chain of events in its
latest court filing:

More than two years [after Syngenta started selling Viptera to
U.S. farmers], in November 2013, the largest corn crop in 50 years
was being harvested and U.S. corn prices had fallen by over 30%
since July.  China then began rejecting U.S. corn supposedly due
to the alleged presence of Viptera and, according to the
complaint, embargoed U.S. corn.  Tens of thousands of plaintiffs
sued Syngenta, alleging that China's actions hurt U.S. corn
prices.  The litigation now involves cases in this [multi-district
litigation program] as well as suits by tens of thousands of
plaintiffs in Minnesota state court and more than three thousand
plaintiffs in state and federal courts in Illinois.  There is no
claim that Viptera is unsafe or defective, or that it caused any
physical harm.  Instead, Plaintiffs seek up to $7.02 billion in
damages for an alleged price drop supposedly caused by educed
Chinese demand.

"Syngenta strongly believes that class certification is
inappropriate in this case, particularly given the widely varying
ways in which farmers grow and sell corn in different markets
across the U.S. Syngenta firmly believes that the Viptera China
lawsuits lack merit and that Agrisure Viptera was commercialized
in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements," the
company said in a statement to AgWeb.

"Review is warranted here to provide guidance on unsettled
questions that are both 'significant to the case at hand, as well
as to class action cases generally,' and to avoid forcing Syngenta
into at least nine class trials based on 'manifestly erroneous'
rulings," Syngenta asserts in appeal documents.


T-MOBILE: Agrees to Pay $48MM to Resolve "Unlimited Plan" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that for the second time in two
years, federal regulators have hit a major broadband provider for
tens of millions of dollars over alleged deceptive practices about
"unlimited" data plans.

T-Mobile USA Inc. on Oct. 19 agreed to pay $48 million to resolve
allegations that the company misled consumers about speed and data
restrictions for the "unlimited" plan.  The Federal Communications
Commission said T-Mobile restricted data speeds for customers who
exceeded a 17-gigabyte threshold on the "unlimited" plan.

The FCC penalty marks the second time in a little more than a year
that the agency has confronted industry practices over "unlimited"
plans.  The agency proposed a $100 million fine against AT&T
Mobility in June 2015.  AT&T has challenged the amount; the
administrative case is still pending before the commission.

"Unlike the A&T policy, the T-Mobile policy at issue in this
investigation did not have a predetermined speed reduction, and
the actual amount of the speed reduction, if any, would vary based
on many factors, and only occurred in times and places where the
network experienced congestion," the FCC said.

The commission said it "believes that for some consumers the speed
reduction would have been significant."  T-Mobile, the commission
said, disagrees with that assessment.

T-Mobile's penalty includes $35.5 million in consumer relief, and
a $7.5 million fine.  The company, additionally, must spend at
least $5 million on free devices, including tablets, for eligible
public schools in lower-income districts.

Broadbrand providers are required to give subscribers accurate
information about their data and speed restrictions, the FCC said.
The commission said T-Mobile's earlier disclosures about its data
"de-prioritization" policy did not provide enough information to
subscribers about what data use would trigger the slow-down.

"Consumers should not have to guess whether so-called 'unlimited'
data plans contain key restrictions, like speed constraints, data
caps, and other material limitations," FCC Enforcement Bureau
Chief Travis LeBlanc said in a statement.  "When broadband
providers are accurate, honest and upfront in their ads and
disclosures, consumers aren't surprised and they get what they've
paid for."

Mr. LeBlanc added: "T-Mobile has stepped up to the plate to ensure
that its customers have the full information they need to decide
whether 'unlimited' data plans are right for them."

T-Mobile, under the terms of the settlement, must "update and
improve its disclosures regarding its 'unlimited' plans," the FCC
said.

John Legere, the T-Mobile chief executive, said in a Tweet on Oct.
19: "Good settlement with FCC today. @TMobile believes more info
is best for customers."


TIME WARNER: Merger Disclosure Includes Forum Selection Clause
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Oct. 24, Time
Warner filed a disclosure at the Securities and Exchange
Commission of its $85 billion merger agreement with AT&T.  The SEC
filing includes a provision notifying investors that Time Warner
amended its bylaws over the weekend to direct all shareholder
litigation to Delaware Chancery Court.

That forum selection clause, as such provisions are known, is a
very good way to restrict scrutiny of the $85 billion deal by the
plaintiffs' bar.

Shareholder lawyers Ms. Frankel talked to on Oct. 24 about the
Time Warner deal -- and the other just-announced mergers buoying
the stock market -- seemed almost wistful about how difficult it
has become to litigate M&A class actions in Delaware Chancery
Court.

You can be sure some investor will file a class action challenging
AT&T's takeover of Time Warner.  As Fordham law professor Sean
Griffith told Ms. Frankel on Oct. 24, Time Warner's decision to
reach a deal with AT&T without seeking competing bids is an open
invitation for plaintiffs' lawyers to argue that shareholders
aren't getting a fair price.

But according to three top-notch plaintiffs' lawyers who talked to
Ms. Frankel on background, a series of recent decisions from the
Delaware Supreme Court and Chancery Court has made it much tougher
for investors to police corporate boards and advisers, to block
shareholder votes on deals involving a single bidder and to
recover damages for disclosure violations if shareholders have
voted in favor of a merger.

The net effect of this recent precedent, they said, is to
encourage shareholders to file M&A class actions in federal court,
alleging violations of federal disclosure laws, rather than
bringing fiduciary duty suits in Delaware.

These lawyers weren't even talking about Chancery Court's
celebrated 2015 crackdown on "deal tax" settlements.  You probably
remember that Delaware judges acted in concert to squelch M&A
class action settlements in which corporations received broad
releases from shareholder claims in exchange for additional, often
immaterial, proxy disclosures.

Chancery Court's refusal to sign off on six- or seven-figure fees
for plaintiffs' lawyers who negotiated disclosure-only settlements
has already sharply reduced the number of M&A challenges filed in
Delaware.

According to a Cornerstone Research study published this summer,
nearly two-thirds of all deals valued at more than $100 million
still provoked shareholder litigation, but that's way down from
the 2013 peak of 94 percent -- and shareholder lawyers are much
more likely to file investor suits outside of Delaware. (Thus
explaining Time Warner's new forum selection clause.)

MORE SHAREHOLDER ROADBLOCKS

For all of the attention paid to the clampdown on disclosure-only
settlements, the Delaware Supreme Court's 2015 opinion in Corwin
v. KKR may turn out to have been a more important disincentive for
shareholder lawyers to sue in Chancery Court.

In the Corwin decision, written by Chief Justice Leo Strine, the
state supreme court held that if a deal is approved by "fully
informed, uncoerced" shareholders, the board's actions during the
sale process should be reviewed under the extremely forgiving
business judgment standard.

Effectively, the Corwin ruling spelled the end of post-closing
damages claims in deals shareholders voted to approve.

In a much-discussed decision earlier in October, for example,
Vice-Chancellor Joseph Slights dismissed a shareholder class
action against board members of OM Group, a specialty chemical
company bought out by the private equity firm Apollo in 2015.

Plaintiffs alleged the board sold the company on the cheap to
avoid the "embarrassment and aggravation" of agitation by an
activist investor, ignoring the advice of OM's own financial
adviser, who said shareholders would obtain maximum value if the
company were broken up and sold in pieces.

The judge said that however "disquieting" the allegations,
plaintiffs failed to allege that the board withheld material
information from shareholders, 89 percent of whom voted in favor
of the buyout.  Under Corwin, Vice-Chancellor Slights found, OM
directors are in the clear.

In another interpretation of Corwin, Chancellor Andre Bouchard in
August dismissed post-closing breach-of-duty claims against board
members of C&J Energy Services, acquired by Nabors Industries in
2015.

The plaintiffs alleged that C&J didn't disclose a competing bid
(among other supposed disclosure failures) so shareholders were
not actually informed at the time they voted to approve the deal.
The chancellor held plaintiffs waited too long to allege the
disclosure violations, which they should have raised before the
shareholder vote.

The message to plaintiffs' lawyers, in other words, is that the
only way to win an M&A challenge in Delaware is to come up with
evidence of serious disclosure violations in a short time frame.

But plaintiffs' lawyers say Chancery Court judges are
simultaneously tightening the standard for expedited discovery in
M&A cases, stripping them of the tools to obtain that evidence.

SEE YOU IN FEDERAL COURT

The answer, they say, may be to stop litigating M&A challenges as
fiduciary duty cases in Delaware and instead start asserting
violations of federal securities law, which, after all, prohibits
corporations from making false or misleading proxy filings.

Cornerstone's study this summer detected an early move for M&A
class actions from Delaware to federal court.  Decisions like C&J
Energy and OM Group will probably hasten that move.

So look for shareholders to sue Time Warner in federal court, and
to argue that a class action asserting only a cause of action
under federal law is not subject to the company's forum selection
clause.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want Campaign Statements Excluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor's Lonnie Shekhtman reports that
Donald Trump's lawyers are asking a federal judge presiding over
the presidential nominee's upcoming civil trial over Trump
University to bar all statements made by or about Mr. Tump during
his presidential campaign.

These exclusions would include tweets, a 2005 video of him
boasting about sexually assaulting women, his tax history,
criticisms of his charitable foundation, and his comments about
the judge presiding over the case, who is of Mexican descent.

Filed on Oct. 20 in US District Court for the Southern District of
California in San Diego, the request pertains to a nearly
7-year-old class-action lawsuit scheduled to begin Nov. 28, in
which students at Trump University claim they were defrauded by
the unaccredited school's real estate seminars. The university
closed in 2010.

In the legal filing, Mr. Trump's lead attorney, Daniel Petrocelli,
claims the evidence may prejudice the jury and jeopardize the
fairness of the trial.  Allowing even Mr. Trump's own remarks, he
wrote, "carries an immediate and irreparable danger of extreme and
irremediable prejudice to defendants, confusion of issues and
waste of time."

"Before trial begins in this case, prospective members of the jury
will have the opportunity to cast their vote for president," wrote
Trump's lawyers in the filing.  "It is in the ballot box where
they are free to judge Mr. Trump based on all this and more."

Mr. Trump's lawyers had fought to have the lawsuit, filed in 2013,
dismissed altogether.  While Mr. Trump did help develop the
concept and curriculum for the real estate school, they argued,
his staff managed the university by the time the plaintiffs
purchased seminars.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that Trump University seminars
and classes were like infomercials, pressuring students to spend
upwards of $35,000 on mentorships.  Ultimately, they argue, the
university failed to teach real estate success.  Similar claims
have been made in another class-action complaint in San Diego and
in a lawsuit in New York, where the state's Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman sued Trump in 2013 for illegal business practices,
describing his university as an "elaborate bait-and-switch."

Mr. Trump's lawyers also requested that U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel, whom Mr. Trump has described in rallies as a
"hater of Donald Trump" and as "a Mexican," to withhold evidence
about students' finances from the trial.  Affordability of Trump
University, they argue, is not relevant to the trial.

The Republican presidential nominee has steadfastly denied the
allegations, citing positive reviews given by former customers.

In separate court filings, lawyers for the students asked to bar
other evidence from the trial, including testimonials about the
value of the seminars, arguing that they are irrelevant to whether
the university misrepresented the qualifications of its
instructors.

Judge Curiel will consider Trump's request at a hearing on
November 10, two days after the election.

According to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the School of Law at the
University of California in Irvine, Judge Curiel is unlikely to
rule on the breadth of material requested to be barred, and will
instead consider each statement that the plaintiff wants to use at
trial.

"This is unique because I cannot think of another situation in
which a political candidate would have wanted to exclude all of
his campaign statements from being used at a trial," Prof.
Chemerinsky said.


UBS FINANCIAL: Roman Appeals D. P.R. Decision to First Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carmelo Roman, Ricardo Roman-Rivera and SDM Holdings
Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled
Roman, et al. v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
12-cv-01663-CCC-BJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico, San Juan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 7,
2016, the Hon. Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo entered an order:

   a. adopting U.S. Magistrate-Judge Bruce J. McGiverin's Report
      and Recommendation;

   b. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and appoint
      class counsel; and

   c. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and
      supplement complaint.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ktYD6Z5U

The appellate case is captioned as SDM Holdings, Inc., et al. v.
UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-8040, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case stated that appearance
form was due on November 2, 2016.  The First Circuit also notified
the parties that the December 1, 2016 amendment to the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure make significant changes to appellate
practice.  The full text of the amendments, as well as a summary
of major rule changes, is available at https://goo.gl/tzUpHu  The
changes are effective on December 1, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners SDM HOLDINGS INC., CARMELO ROMAN and
RICARDO ROMAN-RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jennie Mariel Espada-Ocasio, Esq.
          ESPADA ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICE, PSC
          PO Box 13811
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 758-1999
          E-mail: espada.esquire@gmail.com

               - and -

          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          156 S Main St.
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: afarah@scott-scott.com
                  alawrence@scott-scott.com
                  drscott@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Beth A. Kaswan, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  bkaswan@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Luis E. Minana, Esq.
          ESPADA MINANA & PEDROSA LAW OFFICES PSC
          122 Domenech St.
          Altos Urb Baldrich
          San Juan, PR 00918-0000
          Telephone: (787) 758-1999
          Facsimile: (787) 773-0500
          E-mail: minanalaw@prtc.net

               - and -

          Hector Eduardo Pedrosa-Luna, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HECTOR E PEDROSA-LUNA
          84 Ponce de Leon Ave.
          San Juan, PR 00918
          Telephone: (787) 920-7983
          Facsimile: (787) 764-7511
          E-mail: hectorpedrosa@gmail.com

               - and -

          Eric Quetglas-Jordan, Esq.
          QUETGLAS LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 16606
          San Juan, PR 00908-6606
          Telephone: (787) 722-7745
          E-mail: quetglaslaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Juan R. Requena-Davila, Esq.
          PO Box 9825
          Plaza Carolina Sta
          Carolina, PR 00988
          Telephone: (787) 768-6945
          Facsimile: (787) 701-1271
          E-mail: requenalaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO
          220th St North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

Plaintiffs ONNASIS CORPORATION and JULIO TORMES-RODRIQUEZ are
represented by:

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          405 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10714-0000
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: dweintraub@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jennie Mariel Espada-Ocasio, Esq.
          ESPADA ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICE, PSC
          PO Box 13811
          San Juan, PR 00908
          Telephone: (787) 758-1999
          E-mail: espada.esquire@gmail.com

               - and -

          Eric Quetglas-Jordan, Esq.
          QUETGLAS LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 16606
          San Juan, PR 00908-6606
          Telephone: (787) 722-7745
          E-mail: quetglaslaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Juan R. Requena-Davila, Esq.
          PO Box 9825
          Plaza Carolina Sta
          Carolina, PR 00988
          Telephone: (787) 768-6945
          Facsimile: (787) 701-1271
          E-mail: requenalaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO
          220th St North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

Defendants-Respondents UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INCORPORATED OF
PUERTO RICO, UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO and CARLOS J. ORTIZ
are represented by:

          Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Esq.
          Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera, Esq.
          Mauricio Oscar Muniz-Luciano, Esq.
          O'NEILL & BORGES LLC
          250 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite 800
          San Juan, PR 00918-1813
          Telephone: (787) 282-5748
          Facsimile: (787) 753-8944
          E-mail: salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com
                  ubaldo.fernandez@oneillborges.com
                  mauricio.muniz@oneillborges.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          PO Box 636
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0000
          Telephone: (302) 651-3210
          Facsimile: (302) 651-3001
          E-mail: Paul.lockwood@skadden.com

Defendants-Respondents UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO and CARLOS
J. ORTIZ are represented by:

          Nicole A. DiSalvo, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          PO Box 636
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0000
          Telephone: (302) 651-3027
          Facsimile: (302) 434-3027
          E-mail: nicole.disalvo@skadden.com

Defendant-Respondent MIGUEL A. FERRER is represented by:

          Guillermo J. Bobonis, Esq.
          Enrique G. Figueroa-Llinas, Esq.
          BOBONIS, BOBONIS & RODRIGUEZ POVENTUD
          129 De Diego Ave
          San Juan, PR 00911-1927
          Telephone: (787) 725-7941
          Facsimile: (787) 723-7735
          E-mail: gjb@bobonislaw.com
                  efl@bobonislaw.com

               - and -

          Francis C. Healy, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Weathers-Lowin, Esq.
          STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Ln.
          New York, NY 10038-4982
          Telephone: (212) 806-5596
          Facsimile: (212) 806-6006
          E-mail: fhealy@stroock.com
                  sweatherslowin@stroock.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          PO Box 636
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0000
          Telephone: (302) 651-3210
          Facsimile: (302) 651-3001
          E-mail: Paul.lockwood@skadden.com

Defendants PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND III, INC., and PUERTO
RICO FIXED INCOME FUND V, INC., are represented by:

          Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, Esq.
          MCCONNELL VALDES LLC
          270 Munoz Rivera Ave.
          PO Box 364225
          San Juan, PR 00936-4225
          Telephone: (787) 250-2631
          Facsimile: (787) 474-9201
          E-mail: rcq@mcvpr.com


UNION PACIFIC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Serrano" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Charles Serrano, et al. v.
UPRR, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00718-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Serrano, et al. v.
UPRR, et al., Case No. 16-56562, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 19, 2016;

   -- Appellant Union Pacific Railroad Company's opening brief is
      due on January 26, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Maria J. Barahona, Coachella
      Self Storage, LLC, Mary Cruz, Monica Rodriguez Elpidio,
      Kenneth R. Hansen, Sandra L. Hinshaw, Enrique Molina, James
      Pilcher, Susan Pilcher, Richard Bagdasarian, Inc., Everardo
      Rivera, Lidia Rivera, Connie Sanchez, David Sanchez,
      Charles Serrano, Barbara Sloan, Ravinder S. Thiara, Sureena
      Thiara, Martin Wells, Susan Wells, Alan Willsmore and
      Shelley Willsmore is due on February 27, 2017; and

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

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Union Pacific
has filed a Ninth Circuit appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Charles Serrano, et
al. v. UPRR, et al., Case No. 16-80101.

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHARLES SERRANO, as trustees of the CHARLES
SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; BARBARA SLOAN, as
trustees of the CHARLES SERRANO AND BARBARA SLOAN 2012 REVOCABLE
TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
COACHELLA SELF STORAGE, LLC; JAMES PILCHER; SUSAN PILCHER; MARTIN
WELLS, as trustees of the MARTIN & SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE TRUST;
and SUSAN WELLS, as trustees of the MARTIN & SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE
TRUST, are represented by:

          Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth McCulley, Esq.
          Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, L.L.C.
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: mcculley@swm.legal
                  stewart@swm.legal

Plaintiffs-Appellees MARTIN WELLS, as trustees of the MARTIN &
SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE TRUST; and SUSAN WELLS, as trustees of the
MARTIN & SUSAN WELLS REVOCABLE TRUST, are represented by:

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

Plaintiff-Appellee RICHARD BAGDASARIAN, INC., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley Keith King, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees LIDIA RIVERA; EVERARDO RIVERA; ENRIQUE
MOLINA; ALAN WILLSMORE, as Trustee for the Wilmore Trust; SHELLEY
WILLSMORE, as Trustee for the Wilmore Trust; KENNETH R. HANSEN, as
Trustee for the Hansen Family Trust; CONNIE SANCHEZ, as Trustee
for the Sanchez Family Trust 11-11-11; DAVID SANCHEZ, as Trustee
for the Sanchez Family Trust 11-11-11; RAVINDER S. THIARA; SUREENA
THIARA; and MARY CRUZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees MONICA RODRIGUEZ ELPIDIO and MARIA J.
BARAHONA are represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee SANDRA L. HINSHAW is represented by:

          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: lange@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant-Appellant UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, is represented by:

          J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: Escott.ballenger@lw.com

               - and -

          Joe Rebein, Esq.
          John K. Sherk, III, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jrebein@shb.com
                  jsherk@shb.com

               - and -

          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com


UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Defend Handling of Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that the 12 plaintiffs' attorneys who
were found to have abused the court system in their manipulation
of a controversial class-action case maintain they didn't do
anything wrong in the handling of the case, according to the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brief filed by their attorney.

"Novel interpretations of law are not a proper basis for
sanctions," attorney Gregory P. Joseph of Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC
of New York wrote in the 57-page brief.

He said that Chief U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III made
several errors when he reached his final decision in August. Judge
Holmes reprimanded five of the attorneys, including John Goodson
of Texarkana, who is the husband of a state Supreme Court justice,
because Holmes found that they acted in bad faith.

The other seven plaintiffs' attorneys who have joined in the
appeal were found to have abused the judicial process, but Judge
Holmes did not sanction them because he said their misconduct did
not rise to the level of bad faith.

Mr. Joseph argues that the reprimand was an abuse of discretion
and that Judge Holmes made errors in his interpretation of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they relate to class-action
dismissals and settlements.

The case at the center of the matter was Adams v. United Services
Automobile Association, which concerned the method used to
calculate homeowners' insurance claims.  It was pending in Holmes'
court for 17 months until both sides agreed to dismiss it in June
2015.

The case was refiled the next day, with a class-action settlement
agreement attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the
settlement was approved without any questions by Circuit Judge
Jerry Ryan.  Judge Holmes called the maneuver improper "forum
shopping" and said he wouldn't have approved the settlement.

Mr. Joseph argued in his filing that there was nothing improper
about that dismissal from federal court.  And he said that until
this case, no court had ever sanctioned a voluntary dismissal
stipulation because it was motivated by forum shopping.

Mr. Joseph also said the attorneys didn't abuse the judicial
process in this case.  Mr. Joseph asked the 8th Circuit to reverse
Holmes' orders.

The plaintiffs' attorneys "are subject to the stigma of the Orders
and the harm flowing from them, which has been magnified by the
substantial publicity in this case," he wrote.

Mr. Joseph has asked for 30 minutes to argue his case before the
8th Circuit in St. Louis.


UNITED STATES: Veterans File Class Action Over Bonus Recoupment
---------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Cloud, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
lawmakers condemned a Pentagon effort to recoup enlistment bonuses
improperly paid to thousands of California National Guard soldiers
a decade ago, saying the overpayments were not the soldiers' fault
and calling on the Pentagon or Congress to waive their debts.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged a House investigation
of the problem, calling the Pentagon demands for repayment of
bonuses from combat veterans "disgraceful."

Mr. McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said the House would demand a
briefing from the National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon agency that
oversees the California branch of the Guard.

The Times reported that the Pentagon was demanding repayment of
enlistment bonuses -- which often reached $15,000 or more -- from
about 9,700 California Guard soldiers, many of whom served
multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The Department of Defense should waive these repayments, and I
will be requesting a full brief from Army and National Guard
leadership," McCarthy said in a statement.  "The House will
investigate these reports to ensure our soldiers are fully honored
for their service.

"Our military heroes should not shoulder the burden of military
recruiters' faults from over a decade ago," Mr. McCarthy said.
"They should not owe for what was promised during a difficult time
in our country."

The bonuses were mostly given out from 2006 to 2008 by California
Guard recruiters who were under pressure to help the Pentagon fill
its ranks for two major wars.

Several California Guard officials pleaded guilty in 2010 to
making fraudulent bonus payments.

The soldiers say the Pentagon is reneging on 10-year-old contracts
and imposing severe hardship on veterans whose only mistake was
taking money that was offered to them at the time.

"These service members -- many of whom were sent into combat --
are now being forced to make difficult and painful decisions to
pay back thousands of dollars they never knew they owed," said
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside), a member of the House Veterans
Affairs Committee. "The solution to this ridiculous situation is
an act of Congress."

"I am appalled by the California National Guard's effort to claw
back bonuses and benefits improperly paid to service members 10
years ago," Mr. Takano added.

The California Guard launched the repayment effort after audits of
14,000 soldiers who received bonuses determined that 9,700 did not
qualify for all or some of the payments, or that the paperwork was
missing.

Audits of soldier records began five years ago and were completed
in September.  Although the problem surfaced in other states, it
was worst in California, which has 17,000 troops and is one of the
largest state Guard organizations.

California Guard officials in Sacramento say federal law bars them
from wiping out the debts, insisting that only the Pentagon can do
so and that it may require an act of Congress.

"We didn't have authority to waive any debts," Col. Peter Cross, a
spokesman for the California Guard, said on Oct. 20.

California Guard officials emphasized that the Guard is helping
troops file appeals.  But the vast majority of soldiers who the
Guard claims received the improper bonuses are still facing
collection efforts.

Only 1,200 soldiers have sent the Pentagon appeals asking for
forgiveness of some or all of their bonuses and other payments.
About half of those have received reduction in their payments,
officials said.

That leaves the rest facing large bills -- and the threat of wage
garnishment, tax liens and interest payments -- if they refuse to
pay, officials said.

"There are soldiers out there who are being pursued that have
totally ignored us," Col. Cross said.  "If they want, they can
contact us to start advocating on their behalf."

About 75% of the soldiers found to owe bonuses and other payments
have either not replied to letters advising them of their debts or
refused to cooperate, said Col. Michael Piazzoni, the California
Guard officer who oversaw the audits.

Soldiers who filed a class-action lawsuit seeking to block the
bonus recoupment said on Oct. 23 that they have seen a sharp
increase in visitors to California Veterans for Justice, a
Facebook page seeking contributions to help defray the costs of
the lawsuit.

Justice Department lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which is filed in federal district court in Sacramento,
and a ruling by the judge in the case is expected by the end of
the year

Robert Richmond, a former Army special forces soldier who is
facing recoupment demands of $19,000, said the soldiers had
managed to raise only $2,500 so far to pay lawyers' costs
connected with the suit.

A petition started on Oct. 22 on the White House website after the
Times story was posted online called for Congress to step in and
alleviate the debts.

"To Congress: This is not the soldiers' fault nor should it be
their burden," the petition reads.  Please help these heroes."

To get a response from the White House, the petition needs 100,000
signatures by Nov. 21. As of Oct. 23, it had 64 signatures.


UTGR INC: Munsif Seeks to Certify Class of Floor Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TANER MUNSIF and ELIZABETH
M. RYAN, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a LINCOLN PARK, alias, Case No.
1:16-cv-00387-M-LDA (D.R.I.), move to conditionally certify a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action of all individuals employed
as Floor Supervisors (or other comparable positions), who were
employed by the Defendant and were subject to these common
practices and policies of the Defendant at any time from three
years before the filing of the complaint to the present:

   (a) Who were paid IRS Form W-2 compensation; and

   (b) Who worked more than 40hours in a workweek; and

   (c) Were not paid at least one and one-half times their
       regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
       40 in a workweek.

Taner Munsif and Elizabeth M. Ryan ask the court to authorize
their counsel to mail or e-mail the Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit
and the Plaintiff Consent to Sue Form to all putative class
members, and to post the Notice and Consent forms on their Counsel
firm's Web site or a Web site created specifically for the purpose
of putting prospective class members on notice of the action and
providing the option to execute opt-in consent forms
electronically on-line.  The Plaintiffs also move that the
Defendant be ordered to post the Notice and Consent forms in
conspicuous locations in all its worksites.

The Plaintiffs ask the court to order the Defendant to provide the
Plaintiffs' counsel with the names and last known addresses, e-
mail addresses, and telephone numbers of all putative class
members within 30 days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xmn1hGra

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          Kennell M. Sambour, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
          E-mail: mchittick@apslaw.com
                  ksambour@apslaw.com




VOLKSWAGEN AG: Compensation Sought for EU Dieselgate Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that European Union consumer champion
Vera Jourova has sought to ramp up pressure on Volkswagen to
compensate owners of diesel vehicles rigged to cheat pollution
controls and asked it for guarantees that its technical fix will
work.

Ms. Jourova, the EU's commissioner for consumer affairs, has
written to VW official Francisco Javier Garcia Sanz asking for
proof that the carmaker can fulfill a pledge to make vehicles
comply with limits on nitrogen oxide (NOx) fumes by autumn 2017, a
Commission official told Reuters on Oct. 24.

"We need VW to guarantee, in a legally binding way and without any
time limit, that the repairs will work and do not have any
negative impact," the official said.

The letter is in response to plans presented by Garcia Sanz in
September to address harm caused to VW's European clients with a
fix the company says will bring vehicles in line with EU law.

Volkswagen admitted to U.S. regulators last year that it installed
illicit software on more than 11 million diesel vehicles sold
worldwide.

The majority of the affected vehicles are in Europe and
Ms. Jourova's letter shows the growing frustration among EU
officials over the gap in VW's approach to European customers
while offering cash payouts to U.S. owners of its cars.

VW has so far set aside about $18 billion to cover the cost of
vehicle refits and a settlement with U.S. authorities.  It also
faces damages claims from investors over its disclosure of the
emissions cheating.

Ms. Jourova's letter called on the German carmaker to offer to
repurchase some vehicles, the official said.

Patchwork Regulation

The commissioner said that VW could be in breach EU consumer law
and repeated calls for voluntary compensation because European
consumers are stymied by their inability to file United States-
style class-action lawsuits in many EU nations and by weaker EU
rules on defeat devices.

Her letter to VW said that the company had an obligation to ensure
its diesel fix does not leave consumers out of pocket in terms of
fuel efficiency and engine life.

VW, which has has previously rejected suggestions it may have
breached EU consumer rules, says it is meeting legal requirements
and that customers will receive certification to show their
vehicles conform with emissions requirements.

The company said on Oct. 24 that it has provided Ms. Jourova with
assurance that it would intensify dialog with consumers if the
need arises.

Ms. Jourova, who sources said is due to meet again with Garcia on
Oct. 20, has urged consumer groups to organize lawsuits based on
allegations that VW duped consumers by promoting their cars as
environmentally friendly.

While the EU has little leverage in the domain of consumer law,
the EU's Industry Commissioner has threatened legal action against
EU nations if they fail to enforce EU laws on air quality.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Final Approval of Emissions Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge said he planned to grant final approval to a $14.7 billion
settlement with Volkswagen over an emissions scandal involving its
diesel-powered vehicles.

"The court is strongly inclined to approve the settlement," said
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer at a hearing in San Francisco
on Oct. 18.  "There is an urgency, as I've expressed, to bring
this matter to a conclusion.  Cars were on the road out of
compliance with environmental regulations, and it is imperative
that this matter be addressed immediately."

He said he would issue his final order by Oct. 25.
According to lawyers at the hearing, there were 462 objectors to
the settlement, which requires Volkswagen to pay up to $10 billion
to owners and lessees of about 475,000 diesel vehicles that were
built with a device installed to cheat emissions tests. Another
3,200 class members had opted out.  "If this were an election,
approval for the settlement would be for a landslide," said
Volkswagen attorney Robert Giuffra -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- a
partner at Sullivan & Cromwell.

More than a dozen objectors or their lawyers spoke at the hearing,
most arguing that the payouts weren't enough or that Volkswagen
wasn't getting punished for its conduct.  Some feared the
settlement didn't account for outstanding liens they'd have to pay
their individual lawyers.  Anna St. John, an attorney at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness, drew the quickest response from Judge Breyer when she
argued that class members were being cut out of potential
compensation because legal fees hadn't been negotiated alongside
the settlement.

"I've seen no nexus, no connection, between the fee request that
is yet to be presented to the court and the settlement being
proposed to the court," Judge Breyer said.

In court papers, several objectors had raised concerns that they
still didn't know the amount of the fees, which would go to 22
firms on the plaintiffs steering committee that worked with
federal regulators on the settlement.

Plaintiffs lawyers have indicated that they won't seek more than
$324 million, but a Reuters report on Oct. 14 citing undisclosed
sources said the request would come closer to $175 million.
Elizabeth Cabraser, of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, declined to confirm those figures.

Judge Breyer said he would be setting a date soon for the
committee to submit its fee application, after which he would hold
a hearing on the request.

The settlement includes only 2-liter vehicles.  At the hearing,
Mr. Giuffra said he hoped to have a separate deal reached by
Nov. 3 on behalf of 80,000 consumers of 3-liter vehicles.


WEST VIRGINIA: Medicaid Program Case Obtains Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on October 7, 2016, a federal district
court in West Virginia granted class-action status to a lawsuit
protesting how the state Medicaid program calculates consumer
service budgets for the Intellectual/Developmental Disability
(I/DD) Waiver program.  Specifically, the plaintiffs are
protesting the algorithm-based method used by APS Healthcare, Inc.
(APS), which manages the waiver, to determine the amount of
funding for home- and community-based services (HCBS) for each
consumer.  The plaintiffs allege that the ASP algorithm fails to
give appropriate weight to recipient need and the amount of waiver
benefits actually authorized in prior years.


WEST VIRGINIA: Jury Selection Begins in Chemical Spill Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
WCHS/WVAH reports that jury selection was set to begin on Oct. 25
in the class-action suit over the 2014 chemical spill.

The spill polluted the drinking water for some 300,000 people.

The lawsuit claims West Virginia American Water did not adequately
safeguard against a potential spill.

It also targets Eastman Chemical, claiming the company did not
test its chemical properly, warn about potential impacts to human
health or the type of tanks used to store it.


WYNYARD GROUP: In Administration, Shareholders Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that Software company Wynyard Group has been put in
voluntary administration.

KordaMentha partners Neale Jackson and Grant Graham have been
appointed administrators of the company, which creates security
software for use by companies and law enforcement agencies.

It's been a difficult year for Wynyard, with its board warning in
August that the company's future was in question and signalling
uncertainty underlying its assumptions about cash-flow and future
sales.

The New Zealand firm reported a loss of $36.2 million for the six
months ended June, and has struggled to deliver on forecasts of
earnings and revenue, while it has burned through its cash in
developing products and markets.

The company had been looking at how it could meet the conditions
to draw on a $10 million loan, which included significant draw
down and administration fees and a hefty 15 percent interest rate.

In a statement to the NZ Stock Exchange, the company's board said
the move to voluntary administration was a significant decision
but the right one.

"The board considered all available options including potentially
raising additional capital and drawing on the $10 million loan but
concluded that neither raising further equity nor incurring debt
was in the best interests of the company, its shareholders or
other stakeholders," the statement said.

Voluntary administration is a step short of receivership and
allows the company to be "ring fenced" and given a breathing space
to work out future options.

The company's shares were suspended from trading.  They had
plunged 88 percent this year hitting a low of 17 cents before
settling at 21.5 cents.

A group of disaffected shareholders had started looking at a class
action against Wynyard's directors for losses.

Gregory Marshall, spokesperson for the shareholders considering
legal action, said the writing was on the wall a while ago.

"From any moment on from last Christmas onwards, it was very clear
the business was going to fail." he said.

Mr. Marshall said the class action was complex but would continue
and said the group may claim about $200 million.


XEROX CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Oct. 24 disclosed that on October 21,
2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its
client Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
("Oklahoma Fire") against Xerox Corporation ("Xerox" or the
"Company") (NYSE:XRX), and certain of its senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox
Corporation, No. 16-cv-08260 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Xerox
common stock between April 23, 2012 and October 23, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the profitability and growth
prospects of an important software product called Health
Enterprise -- designed to assist state agencies administer their
respective Medicaid programs.  Xerox is a global provider of
document processing services and printing machines.  Beginning in
2009, as the Company's hardware products became less profitable,
Xerox embarked on a new corporate strategy to transition into more
of a computer services-related company.  As part of Xerox's
computer services transition strategy, the Company acquired
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. for $6.4 billion in February
2010.  Through the acquisition, Xerox took over the Health
Enterprise product, which provides software solutions for states
to manage all aspects of their contemporary Medicaid programs and
to do so in accordance with government rules and regulations.

During the Class Period, Xerox repeatedly touted the Health
Enterprise business as an important growth area for the Company,
which would operate at low cost and high profit margin.  However,
Defendants' Class Period statements pertaining to the
profitability and growth prospects of the Health Enterprise
business were materially false and misleading because Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's existing Health
Enterprise projects were experiencing major delays and cost
overruns; (2) the Company would be unable to deliver Health
Enterprise implementations at sustainable profits; and (3) as a
result, the Company's positive statements about its business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Beginning in late 2014, this truth began to be revealed in a
series of disclosures that exposed implementation delays, cost
overruns, and customer disputes.  Finally, in October 2015, two
key state agencies terminated Health Enterprise contracts with
Xerox.  By then, Xerox had taken more than $500 million in related
asset write-downs.  In reaction to these revelations, Xerox's
stock lost hundreds of millions of dollars in market
capitalization, with the Company's stock price falling from a
Class Period closing high of $13.57 per share on December 5, 2014,
to close at $9.01 per share on October 27, 2015.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded common stock of
Xerox during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than December 23, 2016.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Oklahoma-
Firefighters-Pension-and-Retirement-System-v-Xerox-
Corporation.cfm?cs_forceReadMode=1

Oklahoma Fire is represented by Labaton Sucharow --
http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest
pension funds in the United States and internationally with
collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-
century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized
for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are located in
New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


YAHOO! INC: Verizon GC Assesses Material Impact of Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Verizon's general counsel indicated on Oct. 13 that the telecom
company's plan to acquire Yahoo for $4.8 billion could have hit a
roadblock.

GC Craig Silliman said at a roundtable that Yahoo's data breach
impacting 500 million customer email accounts has given Verizon "a
reasonable basis to believe right now that the impact is
material," The Washington Post reported.

If the fallout from the breach is in fact determined to be
"material," Yahoo's value may drop and the company would become a
less appealing acquisition.

Mr. Silliman said Yahoo must prove the breach has not impacted its
bottom line.

"We're looking to Yahoo to demonstrate to us the full impact," he
said, adding that if there is a material impact for Yahoo, a key
condition of the deal would not be met.

Analysts told the newspaper that if lawyers determine the impact
of the breach is material, it "could trigger an escape clause in
the agreement to allow the telecom company to back out of the
deal."

In a statement, Yahoo suggested the breach had not affected the
merger.

"We are confident in Yahoo's value and we continue to work toward
integration with Verizon," the company said.

Mr. Silliman said Yahoo has provided preliminary briefings about
the September hack.  "But we're certainly not done with the amount
of information we need to receive from them," he said.  "We still
have a significant way to go in terms of the information we need
to get before we can make our final determinations."

Yahoo previously blamed the breach on "state-sponsored" hackers.
The Post reported this could be considered a "force majeure" or
unavoidable event, rather than a "material adverse effect."

"From a legal perspective, the question 'Is it a state-sponsored
attack?' isn't really relevant in terms of what we're looking at,"
Mr. Silliman said.  "The question is whether this [had] a material
or an adverse effect on the asset we are buying."


* Big Tobacco Mulls Comeback as U.S. Litigation Threat Eases
------------------------------------------------------------
Kadhim Shubber, Arash Massoudi, Paul McClean and Lindsay Whipp,
writing for The Financial Times, report that throughout the
noughties, the world's biggest tobacco companies rapidly retreated
from the US, scared off by billion-dollar litigation claims.  With
those claims now all but gone, big tobacco is looking to make a
return.

British American Tobacco on Oct. 21 offered $47bn for the 57.8 per
cent of Reynolds American that it does not already own -- a buyout
that would hand it a huge chunk of a market that is once again
seen as attractive.

The US is expected to be a key driver of sales growth with low
pack prices, a dominant ecigarette market and waning fears of
litigation costs.  Analysts say the deal will pave the way for
further sector consolidation, with other major tobacco groups
eager to tap the US.

Like other developed markets, US volumes have been declining as
fewer people smoke.  But thanks to robust pricing, industry-wide
profits rose 10 per cent last year, according to Vivien Azer of
Cowen & Co, who describes the US market as "incredibly healthy".
She notes that the smaller decline in volume last year was the
result of demand from lower-income consumers, who have seen
minimum wages increase, and unemployment and gas prices fall.

Erik Bloomquist, an independent tobacco analyst, says: "It's all
teed up; it's as good as it's going to get."

British rival Imperial Tobacco entered the US in 2015 after a
complicated three-way deal involving divestments from the merger
of Reynolds and Lorillard, and analysts say Philip Morris
International could also re-enter the market by purchasing Altria,
its former parent company from which it spun off in 2008.

"This development heralds even further consolidation in global
tobacco and I expect it to be followed in the coming years by the
reunification of Philip Morris International and Altria . . . to
create two huge players in global tobacco," says Shane MacGuill,
head of tobacco at Euromonitor.

For years, lawsuits in the US have weighed on the sector and
scared off the biggest companies, with claims totalling hundreds
of billions of dollars in damages.  However, a series of legal
victories have reassured US tobacco executives and investors that
the worst courtroom defeats are now behind them.

In June, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by Illinois's
highest court to reject a $10bn claim against Altria, which makes
Marlboro in the US.  A separate $145bn class action suit against
the industry in Florida was quashed in 2006, with the claimants
forced to file suits individually.  Last year hundreds of such
suits were settled for $100m.

And a $280bn case the Department of Justice pursued against the
industry for misleading the public about the dangers of smoking
concluded in 2006 with no serious fine for tobacco companies.

"What we've seen over the past 10 years is that litigation
payments have been very low.  It's not seen as anything like the
risk it was in the early 2000s," says James Bushnell, an analyst
at Exane BNP Paribas.

"The separation of the US from the rest of the world in the
noughties is being reversed, and the perceived litigation risk is
now a lot lower."

BAT's bid is the latest blockbuster consolidation attempt in big
tobacco, which has looked to dealmaking to cut costs and pool
resources to develop new products, such as ecigarettes.  A
takeover of Reynolds would generate $400m in savings, BAT says,
while the US company has been ahead of the curve in developing
cigarette alternatives.

Reynolds completed a $27bn merger with Lorillard last year, making
it the second-largest US tobacco company by sales with 35 per cent
market share, behind Altria.

BAT, which posted revenues of $20bn in 2015, has also been making
acquisitions, predominantly focused on less-developed markets such
as Brazil, eastern Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia. Last
year, it bought out public investors in its Brazilian subsidiary
Souza Cruz, the unit where chief executive Nicandro Durante began
his career in tobacco.  It also extended its reach in the Balkans
with the acquisition of Croatian company TDR.

If Reynolds accepts a deal, it would make BAT the world's largest
listed tobacco company by sales and operating profit, leapfrogging
market leader Philip Morris International.

Reynolds, which in October reported third-quarter earnings that
missed market expectations, has informally told BAT it is open to
a deal.  But is asking for a higher offer, according to people
briefed on the negotiations.

People close to BAT are adamant that the approach was not hostile
and that it was only unsolicited because of US rules dictating the
relationship between large shareholders in a company.

The lack of geographical overlap at BAT and Reynolds means there
should be few concerns from antitrust authorities, according to
analysts.

However, rating agencies Moody's and Fitch have warned of the
impact on BAT's balance sheet and placed their ratings under
review, with Moody's saying "it could lead to a significant
deterioration in BAT's credit metrics".

The acquisition would refocus BAT's business away from emerging
markets and towards developed ones, which are typically more
profitable despite sometimes tighter regulation and slower growth.
The London-listed business has built a leading position in Africa,
which is expected to be a lucrative source of future profits due
to its young population and rising incomes.

BAT's reputation has been tarnished, however, by a bribery scandal
in east Africa, where the company is alleged to have bribed
officials in an effort to see off tighter regulation.  BAT hired
lawyers earlier this year to investigate the claims.


* Businesses Need to Manage Customer Privacy Risk Amid Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Blosfield, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
insurance carriers and agents have come to learn that increased
data can lead to greater risk for insureds, and they are
increasingly advising businesses to disclose data collection
practices while seeking to gain insurance coverage, according to
David Garrett, president of CISO Advisory & Investigations LLC.

"It is not unusual now for insurance applications to include
specific questions about applicants' data collection practices,"
Mr. Garrett said.

Standard insurance applications are becoming more detailed in the
wake of increased wrongful collection of data claims as more
companies are unintentionally swept up in litigation or regulatory
action as a result of data collection practices, insurance
industry experts told Insurance Journal.

"There have been many instances in the last decade where companies
didn't know they were doing anything wrong,"
John Coletti, chief underwriting officer for cyber and technology
at XL Catlin, said.  "They thought they were collecting data for
innocent means, but really, they were in violation of some
statute.  These situations can actually cause some large financial
losses for companies."

NetDiligence's 2015 Cyber Claims Study found that personally
identifiable information was the most frequently exposed data,
making up 45 percent of claims, last year.  The study also found
that 2015's largest legal and regulatory costs resulted from
mid-revenue organizations accused of wrongful data collection.
The combined legal and regulatory costs for these organizations
ranged from $411,000 to more than $6.7 million over the course of
the year, according to the study.

Mr. Coletti pointed to one example where some California and
Massachusetts retail stores found out the hard way in the past
several years that asking for customer ZIP codes along with a
credit card transaction in those states can lead to class action
lawsuits or regulatory involvement.

"There's a statute in California that has to do with the
collection of information at the point of sales," Mr. Coletti
said.  "In the past when you would go into a store to purchase
something, companies may ask for your ZIP code.  It turns out that
isn't allowed under this statute in California, so lots of
companies were doing this in violation of the statute and ended up
with class action claims.  They didn't even realize it in many
cases, because they just wanted that information to know a little
more about their customers."

This example points to the broader issue of information security,
which has become more important than ever with trends toward
collecting big data -- large and complex sets of data used for
analytical purposes.

"Some businesses today are storing massive amounts of customer
data for no immediate purpose -- simply in the hope that they will
discover a way to monetize it in the future," Mr. Garrett said.

"But stockpiling petabytes of data creates significant risks to
businesses," Mr. Garrett said.

Indeed, the California Supreme Court decided in February 2011 that
the collection of a customer's ZIP code along with a credit card
transaction violates consumer privacy under the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act.  Similarly, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts ruled that state law prohibits retailers from
collecting ZIP codes as part of credit card transactions in March
2013.

"When you give somebody what you think is a harmless piece of
information, they can do a lot more with it than you expect," said
Nick Economidis, an underwriter at Beazley, during a panel
discussion at the 2016 Professional Liability Underwriting Society
(PLUS) Cyber Liability Symposium held in New York City.

In fact, the swipe of a credit card combined with a ZIP code and
email address can lead a large data broker to get a name, address
and other information about a customer, he added.  As technology
has grown more complex, protecting information privacy has become
increasingly difficult, leading some states to crack down on data
collection practices to better define personally identifiable
information and leading regulators to dive deeper into the issue.

"What researchers have shown is that separate databases can be
used along with algorithms to basically disclose the anonymity of
anybody," said Arturo Perez-Reyes, vice president at HUB
International.

Regulatory Landscape

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's chief
privacy policy and enforcement agency, issued a final report
outlining best practices for businesses to protect U.S. consumer
privacy and give consumers broader control over the collection and
use of personal data.  Additionally, the FTC in 2014 issued
another report urging U.S. Congress to consider legislation to
make data broker practices more transparent to consumers, offering
consumers additional control over personal information collected
and shared by data brokers, or companies that collect consumers'
personal information and resell or share it with others.

"The regulators have started looking at what constitutes
personally identifiable information in a much broader sense," said
panelist Dominique Shelton -- dominique.shelton@alston.com
-- partner at Alston & Bird LLP, at the 2016 PLUS Cyber Liability
Symposium.  "They are looking at the fact that a lot of data can
be identified later and linked to a specific person, so they are
moving away from the concept of aggregated, purely anonymous
data."

Additionally, some state and local governments have moved to
better regulate data privacy and security, Mr. Garrett said.

"New York is a great example," he said.  "Agencies as diverse as
the New York Department of Financial Services have recently
proposed new cybersecurity regulations."

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) has
proposed cybersecurity regulations for financial services
companies that aims to protect New York state's financial services
industry from cyber attacks.  The proposed regulation is the first
of its kind in the U.S.  It requires banks, insurance companies
and other financial services institutions regulated by the DFS to
maintain a cybersecurity program designed to protect consumers and
ensure safety in New York's financial services industry, according
to a DFS press release.  The proposal also addresses the issue of
company data collection and retention.

While the FTC and state regulators have taken a closer look at
this issue recently, laws around data collection still vary by
state with no federal standard for compliance.

"The laws around that are kind of a state in progress right now,"
said Mr. Perez-Reyes.

Mr. Garrett added that the patchwork nature of these laws so far
has made it difficult for many businesses and underwriters to
comply.

"There is no one security standard for companies to build their
network, so for an underwriter, there's no reference point," said
Mr. Coletti.

"On the buyer side, it can get frustrating because you can talk to
three different underwriters who will all ask different questions
because there's no standardized process for evaluating someone's
cybersecurity."

Insurance Industry Challenge

Another source of confusion for the insurance industry regarding
data collection can be determining the difference between an
unintentional wrongful collection of data claim and a business
that has been negligent or malicious, Mr. Coletti added.

"This is a tricky coverage area for insurers because you
understand from an insurance perspective in some cases, the
company feels like it's doing everything correctly, is being
transparent, has read the laws, has done due diligence and has had
lawyers review statutes and privacy notices and still gets hit
with wrongful collection claims," he said.  "But you have some
clients that aren't doing that and are collecting data without any
regard to laws or statutes. The coverage in the market treads that
line between wanting to cover innocent insureds, but not wanting
to cover those that are collecting data negligently."

This has led many insurers to exclude wrongful collection of data
from their policies, he stated.

"Some carriers say flat out they don't want to cover wrongful
collection because they don't want to get into a dispute about
whether the insured did this intentionally or negligently,"
Mr. Coletti said.

This is because increased technological connectivity can impact
the exposures both policyholders and insurers face, said
Laurie Kamaiko, partner at Sedgwick Law.

"Insurance companies have the challenge of being very much on top
of their own exposures, but also on top of the exposures presented
to them through the lines of insurance they write," she said.

Evolving Coverage

With this in mind, businesses need to take a close look at their
insurance policies to be sure the right coverage is in place.

"I tell clients all the time that it's not just a question of
seeking coverage for cyber events -- there are a host of class
actions for privacy claims associated with data breaches as well,"
Shelton said during the panel discussion.

After companies are hit with class action lawsuits or regulatory
investigations, they will sometimes look to their cyber policies
for coverage and find a wrongful collection of data exclusion
that's not what they thought it would be, she explained.

Some insurers that initially exclude wrongful collection from
their policies will add it back in through an endorsement or
negotiation at the time of binding.  Because this is a new product
and market for many insurers, as coverages are better understood
with advances in technology and increased wrongful collection
claims, underwriters are learning to ask the right questions, Mr.
Coletti added.

"I think the discussions between the underwriters and clients are
getting more technical in regards to security and privacy law," he
said.  "That trend will continue, and it has to continue.
Evaluating cyber is a difficult underwriting process, and the only
way to analyze it is through a detailed discussion or application.
It's a good thing for the industry in general, because this is
something that has to be done to effectively mitigate cyber risk."

Although regulation around data management has increased recently,
businesses need to be aware of the data they're collecting and
what it's being used for, particularly as technology changes so
quickly, Mr. Coletti said.

"We live in a dynamic time," Mr. Garrett added.  "You have
regulators all over the world pushing for increased controls to
ensure data privacy and security.  On the other hand, you have
businesses seeking to monetize new technologies, such as big data
analytics.  One trend is pushing businesses to store less data,
and the other is pushing [them] to store more.  Only time will
tell where the equilibrium will be."


* DOL Fiduciary Rule May Spark Litigation Against Financial Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrons, citing InvestmentNews, reports that legal experts believe
it's only a matter of time until the DOL fiduciary rule leads to
litigation against financial firms.

Even advisors who exercise maximum caution in complying with the
rule will be in uncharted waters after the rule takes effect in
April, according to a panel of lawyers at a recent industry event.

At the heart of the panel discussion was the DOL rule's best-
interest contract exemption, InvestmentNews reports.  BICE, as
it's commonly called, lets advisors earn sales commissions and
other kinds of variable compensation in exchange for meeting
certain conditions.

Many in the industry fear that BICE will open the door to class-
action lawsuits from IRA investors.  It will be difficult for
firms targeted by such suits to prove that their investment
recommendations were completely independent of their financial
interests, one panelist noted.

Lawsuits will likely focus on "systemic violations of the rule's
impartial conduct standards and disclosure requirements,"
InvestmentNews reports.

According to one panelist, plaintiff attorneys might base a class
action effort upon decisions and guidance made at an institutional
level.  A suit might take aim, for example, at a defendant
institution's definition of reasonable compensation.


* Federal Courts Split on Class Action Rights Waiver Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hayber, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that wage and hour class actions have been an important tool for
enforcing minimum wage and overtime laws in this country for
decades.  This country's first wage and hour law, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was passed in 1938.  It requires that employers pay
a minimum wage, and that they pay overtime for hours over 40 in a
week. Many employers cross the line that these laws establish in
order to save labor costs.  They sometimes classify employees as
exempt when they should not.  They sometimes ask employees to work
off the clock.  They sometimes pay server minimum wages, even when
those servers aren't serving customers and instead are cleaning
the restaurant.  The U.S. Department of Labor reported last year
that it alone collected over $137 million in unpaid overtime wages
from employers who violate these laws.

Recently, the defense bar in this area has come up with a new tool
to avoid class-wide liability for their clients -- the class
action waiver.  Employers are increasingly inserting conditions in
their handbooks which require employees to waive their rights to
bring lawsuits in court, and to initiate or participate in class
actions.  These provisions limit an employee's rights to bring
individual cases in arbitration and bar their access to the
courts.

The plaintiff's bar has fought back with many arguments, including
that such terms are unconscionable, or that they effectively
prevent an employee from vindicating his or her rights.  Most of
these challenges have failed.  There is one argument, however,
that is still alive and may result in invalidating such waivers
around the country.  This argument is that class action waivers
violate employees' right to engage in "concerted activities" under
the National Labor Relations Act. That law expressly guarantees
"[e]mployees . . . the right . . . to engage in . . . concerted
activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection." 29
U.S.C. Section 157.  That law also provides that it is "an unfair
labor practice for an employer . . . to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 157 of this title." 29 U.S.C. Section 158(a)(1).

Essentially, this argument states that an employer cannot require
its employees to waive their rights to class actions because
participating in a class action constitutes "concerted activities
for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection."  Indeed, it is
hard to imagine a better example of employees acting in concert
with each other than when they join together in a class action to
recover wages that they claim they are due.

One of the earliest rulings in this area came from the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a case called D.R. Horton, 357
N.L.R.B No. 184 (2012).  In that case the N.L.R.B held that an
employer who required class action waivers violated Section 8 of
the N.L.R.A by restraining concerted activities. Unfortunately for
employees, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.  In D.R.
Horton v. N.L.R.B 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2014) the Fifth Circuit
held that the N.L.R.A was not violated because the right to
proceed in a class action was a procedural right, and not a
substantive right protected by the act. Other circuits followed:
Walthour v. Chipio Winshield Repair LLC 745 F.3d 1326, 1336 (11th
Cir. 2014); Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 744 F.3d 1072, 1075 n.
3 (9th Cir. 2013); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050,
1053-1055 (8th Cir. 2013); Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 726
F.3d 290, 297 n. 8 (2d Cir. 2013).

Recently, this employer-friendly trend has been reversed.  On
May 24, 2016, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that class
action waivers violate the N.L.R.A and are unenforceable. Lewis v.
EPIC Systems Corp., 283 F.3d 1147(7th Cir. 2016).  In Lewis a
unanimous 7th Circuit panel, written by Chief Judge Diane Wood,
addressed two legal questions: whether a collective action waiver
violates Section 7 of the N.L.R.A and, if so, whether the Federal
Arbitration Act overrides the N.L.R.A.  The 7th Circuit first held
that class and collective action by employees against their
employers fall squarely within the definition of "concerted
activity" in Section 7 of the N.L.R.A.  The court also rejected
the "procedural right" distinction made by the 5th Circuit in D.R.
Horton.  On this point, the court held that while class and
collective actions are indeed creatures of civil procedure,
employees have a substantive right under Section 7 to act in
concert with each other, and these lawsuits are one of the ways
they may do so.  Finally, the court held that any purported
"agreement" between the employer and the employees in
contravention of this right is unenforceable under basic contract
law principles.

The court then addressed the question of whether the F.A.A trumps
the N.L.R.A.  The Federal Arbitration Act provides that
arbitration agreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon grounds as exist at law or in equity for
the revocation of any contract." The 7th Circuit held that this
rule did not conflict with the N.L.R.A as earlier courts had held.
The 7th Circuit found it perfectly consistent that this
arbitration agreement and class action waiver would not be favored
by the F.A.A because it was revocable under the principles of
contract -- namely that it was a contract to do an illegal thing:
restrain an employee's right to engage in concerted activities.
This ruling has now been followed by other courts. See Tigges v.
AM Pizza, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100366 (D.Mass. 2016);

The 9th Circuit has recently weighed in on this issue.  On
August 22nd, 2016 the 9th Circuit struck down a class action
waiver as being a violation of the N.L.R.A. Morris v. Ernst &
Young, LLP 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15638 (9th Cir. 2016).  This court
followed the reasoning of the 7th Circuit and ruled that mandatory
class action waivers are unenforceable as being restraints on
employees' right to engage in concerted activities.
Most recently the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling
on this topic.  Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co. 2016 U.S. App.
LEXIS 16240 (2nd Cir 2016).  In this case a panel of three circuit
judges reluctantly held that class action waivers are enforceable.
I say "reluctantly" because this panel expressly indicated that it
was declining to invalidate the waiver because it felt constrained
to follow the 2013 ruling contained in Footnote 8 of the 2nd
Circuit's opinion in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP 726 F.3d
290, 297 n. 8 (2d Cir. 2013).  In Sutherland, the 2nd Circuit was
primarily concerned with the plaintiff's argument that the class
action waiver effectively prevented him from vindicating his right
to overtime pay because of the excessive cost of litigation
compared with the relatively small amount of wages due.  This
argument was being advanced as an argument that the class action
waiver was unconscionable.  In a footnote, the 2nd Circuit noted
that the plaintiff had also argued in his brief that the N.L.R.A
required invalidation of the class action waiver.  Without any
discussion or analysis the 2nd Circuit simply indicated that it
declined to follow the N.L.R.B's ruling in D.R. Horton.  Three
years later in Patterson the 2nd Circuit reluctantly followed
Sutherland, but specifically indicated that it otherwise would
likely have followed the 7th and 9th Circuits in this area.
If we were writing on a clean slate, we might well be persuaded,
for the reasons forcefully stated in Chief Judge Wood's and Chief
Judge Thomas's opinions in Lewis and Morris, to join the Seventh
and Ninth Circuits and hold that the EAP's waiver of collective
action is unenforceable.  But we are bound by our Court's decision
in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013),
which aligns our Circuit on the other side of the split.  In
considering an alternative argument made by the plaintiff in that
case, Sutherland "declined[d] to follow the [NLRB's] decision in
Horton I "that a waiver of the right to pursue a FLSA claim
collective in any forum violates the [NLRA]." Id. At 197 n.8. We
are bound by that holding "until such time as [it is] overruled
either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court."
United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004).

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals recently held oral argument on a
similar case, and there are several petitions pending to the
United States Supreme Court asking it to review this issue.
It almost goes without saying that this issue is an important one
for employees around the country.  Most employees do not
understand their rights when it comes to overtime pay. Class and
collective actions are an important way for employees to enforce
those rights.  When one or more employees learn their rights and
bring a lawsuit in court, other similarly situated employees
should have the right to join, participate, and collect back wages
if they are due.  Allowing employers to require these claims to be
brought one at a time and only in the arbitration forum will
embolden employers to violate these laws and retain for themselves
the wages that should be paid to their workers. These cases should
be watched carefully to see whether employees will regain their
rights to band together and sue their employers in class actions.


* Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Restrict Rights of ISP Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brodkin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that mandatory
arbitration clauses are depriving customers of their rights and
helping ISPs avoid serious punishment for actions that harm
consumers, two Democratic officials from the Federal
Communications Commission and US Senate argue.

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and US Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)
on Oct. 24 published a Time op-ed titled "How Your Internet
Provider Restricts Your Rights."  By pushing customers into
arbitration instead of court review, ISPs are protecting
themselves from class-action suits, Mr. Clyburn and Sen. Franken
wrote.

"Ever since a series of controversial Supreme Court decisions
ruling that companies can use these clauses to force disputes out
of the legal system and into the private arbitration process,
they've become far more common," they wrote.  "And in telecom
contracts, they're nearly ubiquitous.  A study by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that 99.9 percent of
wireless subscribers were subject to mandatory arbitration
clauses."

These clauses prohibit class-action lawsuits, according to the two
politicians.  Even when customers have the right to sue in court,
they might pay more in legal fees than they'd recover in a
verdict.  "The only feasible way for you as a customer to hold
that corporation accountable would be to band together with other
customers who had been similarly wronged, building a case
substantial enough to be worth the cost -- and to dissuade that
big corporation from continuing to rip its customers off,"
Mr. Clyburn and Sen. Franken wrote.  "With class action off the
table, they know it'll never be worth your while to take them to
court, even when they are clearly in the wrong."

Without the threat of class-action suits, ISPs face little risk
when customers encounter frequent service outages, mysterious new
fees, and early termination fees that they "don't remember
agreeing to pay," they wrote.

An arbitration clause agreed to before any dispute arises can be
"mandatory" in the sense that "either side can mandate that a
dispute that arises between the parties be resolved in binding
arbitration," the CFPB noted in its report last year.  In many
cases, the clauses are mandatory in a stricter sense, with
consumers having the options only of agreeing to the clause or not
buying service at all.

Companies sometimes give customers the ability to opt out of
arbitration clauses within a specified time period, but customers
are often unaware of this option, the CFPB found.  Customers are
also often unaware that their contracts include arbitration
clauses at all. (These findings applied specifically to credit
card customers.) Many arbitration clauses have exceptions allowing
actions in small claims court.

Comcast provides an online form for customers who want to opt out
of arbitration.  Recently, a group of customers who opted out of
arbitration filed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Comcast
of falsely advertising low prices and then using poorly disclosed
fees to increase the amount paid for cable TV.  In another case,
Comcast agreed to a $50 million settlement 11 years after a class-
action was filed.

Providing an opt-out may help companies defend against legal
challenges to binding arbitration clauses while still confining
most customers to arbitration.

Sen. Franken noted that he has authored Senate legislation that
would ban mandatory arbitration clauses.  But it might be easier
to pass restrictions at the FCC as long as it is controlled by
Democrats who support consumer protection initiatives.
Mr. Clyburn said in the op-ed that she is "leading the charge for
a regulatory crackdown."

In a speech, Mr. Clyburn said the FCC should "limit pre-dispute
arbitration clauses in communications services contracts . . .
This idea is teed up in our work on broadband privacy and should
be adopted first for consumer broadband and then for all services
sold to consumers under the FCC's jurisdiction where we have the
legal authority to do."

Mr. Clyburn's remark about the FCC's work on broadband privacy
refers to a vote on rules that would require ISPs to get opt-in
consent from consumers before sharing Web browsing data and other
private information with advertisers and other third parties.  An
early version of the proposal asked the public whether the FCC
should "prohibit [broadband Internet] providers from compelling
arbitration in their contracts with customers."

But the final proposal has not been made public yet; a summary
released by the FCC does not mention arbitration clauses.  When
contacted by Ars on Oct. 25, an FCC spokesperson declined to
comment on whether the current version of the proposal addresses
arbitration.

The FCC could tackle arbitration in a separate rulemaking,
although Chairman Tom Wheeler could be in his final months as
chair.


* Professional Services Firms Face Pay Equity Litigation Threats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers,
accountants and software engineers -- they might have jobs that
pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but for many women
that's not enough.  In class actions filed over the past five
years against firms like Goldman Sachs, Chadbourne & Parke,
Microsoft Corp. and Twitter Inc., women have alleged men in top
leadership positions are making all the decisions on pay and
promotions -- and it's clear that they don't want women to get
ahead.

Once targeting retail jobs at Home Depot and Wal-mart, pay equity
class actions are focusing increasingly on professional careers.
Women in these positions complain about being underpaid, but their
broader issue is with a secretive promotional process run by men
that keeps them from moving up in their careers.

"The reason we're seeing these cases come forward now and come
forward as class actions is that for years women in professional
services firms, particularly law firms, have been trying to get
into positions of leadership and power," said Patricia Gillette, a
mediator at JAMS who served on the compensation committee of the
American Bar Association's pay equity task force.  That's made
more women look at their compensation.  "Am I being rewarded for
what I'm bringing in the firm?"

Defense attorneys acknowledge that the narrative over pay equity
has reached unprecedented levels.  It was even a hot topic this
year at the first presidential debate.  And federal and state
equal pay laws were amended this year, raising the prospect that
more cases could get filed.  But that's not the only reason that
professional women are suing: Plaintiffs lawyers have a financial
incentive to bring cases over jobs that pay a lot of money.

"Professional services firms have overall a more highly paid
employee population, which makes them more attractive targets for
the plaintiffs bar," said Robert Whitman, a New York partner at
Seyfarth Shaw.  Mr. Whitman's firm is defending Sedgwick in a pay
equity class action, but he is not involved in the case.

Women are "fed up"

Plaintiffs lawyers cited a generational shift among professional
women who have grown frustrated with a lack of change in their
industries.

"In the last 10 to 15 years, women in professional jobs are now
getting fed up with seeing the same problems get regurgitated
generation after generation," said Kelly Dermody, a partner at
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein who has filed pay equity class
actions against Microsoft and Goldman Sachs.  "I've had a lot of
class actions involving financial services and technology by women
working in highly male dominated industries where there have been
prominent women who broke the glass ceiling 25 years ago and
nothing changed."

In the 1990s, she said, professional women didn't think they
should get involved in suing over gender discrimination.  Today,
Ms. Dermody has three more class actions in the works involving
professional women.

The cases allege that women are paid less in compensation, often
including bonuses and stock options.  But the central focus has
been a compensation system that for the most part is kept secret.
There is no formal process or objective criteria under which women
can ask for a promotion and, in many cases, decisions on
promotions are made by a small group of men at the top -- what
some refer to as a "black box."  That means that although many of
the women have been promoted, most claim their male colleagues
have moved up even higher while they've been denied professional
support or other opportunities to advance their careers.

In the case against Twitter, for example, software engineer Tina
Huang resigned after she was put on personal leave for three
months following her complaints about being denied a promotion.
She described a "subjective, secretive promotion process" that
relied on her manager's recommendation and a committee whose
members were kept secret.  In the Chadbourne case, plaintiff
Kerrie Campbell described a management committee made up of five
men as a "centralized brotherhood" in New York that made all
decisions on pay and promotions.  "Its decision-making processes
and methodology are kept under wraps," the complaint says of the
committee.

Some cases cite instances of sexual harassment.  In the Microsoft
case, one of the three women who brought the case for all female
technical and engineering employees alleged a boss who lowered her
bonus was later found to have sexually harassed female employees
but was still promoted.  In the Sedgwick case, lead plaintiff
Traci Ribeiro said the firm's chairman once told her "don't worry,
we're not going to bring you out to the woodshed."

The Goldman Sachs case describes a "boys club" culture featuring
topless bars and drinking events at which two named plaintiffs
claimed male associates pinned them against the wall, kissing
them.  Ms. Dermody, who brought that case, said harassment claims
often go hand-in-hand with unequal pay.

"There's a story within the story, which is typically these pay
issues don't happen in a vacuum of an otherwise fair and inclusive
workforce," she said.

The cases bring various claims, primarily under the U.S. Equal Pay
Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful
for an employer to discriminate based on sex.  But this year's
changes to several laws could force companies to disclose pay or
shift the burden on defendants to explain their compensation
practices.

"A lot of people are wondering whether increased legislation in
this area in the coming years will result in more individual and
class cases," said Blair Robinson --
blair.robinson@morganlewis.com -- a partner at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius in New York who represents Merck & Co. Inc. and Daiichi
Sankyo Inc. in pay equity class actions brought by pharmaceutical
sales reps.

The new California law came into play in a case brought by female
attorneys at Farmers Insurance.

Plaintiffs lawyer Lori Andrus, a partner at San Francisco's Andrus
Anderson, who reached a $5.9 million settlement in the case,
including attorney fees, on behalf of 300 class members, said the
amended law puts the burden on defendants to "demonstrate any gap
identified is due to something other than gender."  The
settlement, approved on Sept. 30, also provides that Farmers hire
a human resources consultant to review its compensation practices,
disclose pay to employees and change its hiring and promotional
practices with the goal of increasing the representation of women
in its claims litigation department.

But new laws are only one driver behind why plaintiffs attorneys
are bringing class actions on behalf of professional women.

"If you're talking about an employee population where people make
$1 million a year and there's a pay disparity, there's going to be
more money at stake than a class action involving people who make
$100,000 a year," Mr. Whitman said.  "One of the big challenges is
the plaintiffs law firm has to choose to make an investment in a
case without any guarantee of a payday at the end because the data
may show there's no problem at all."

And some defendants have put up significant fights.  Cases against
KPMG and Goldman Sachs have dragged on for years, mired in
discovery disputes, evidentiary hearings over class certification
and challenges on the standing of named plaintiffs.

Defendants often raise factors that could affect someone's
compensation besides their gender, like whether he or she has
served as a mentor or doesn't participate in firm activities, said
Gillette, a former employment defense attorney.  More subjective
factors come into play, particularly at law firms, some of which
take a "gestalt" approach to compensation, she said.

"For most firms, they have a more generic, not a formulaic,
approach to compensation, and in a class action you have to show
everyone has a pretty similar fact situation so you can say
they're similarly situated," Gillette said.  "It's the squishiness
of the compensation system that makes it harder."

In class actions, unlike individual cases which often revolve
around a plaintiff's personal situation, defendants often
challenge whether there was a common policy of gender
discrimination.  To get a class certified, plaintiffs have to show
that every woman's circumstance was the same. The cases often
devolve into duels between statistical experts.

And bringing a case is a major risk -- particularly for the women
leading the case.

"It's a career limiting move for somebody who brings these cases,"
said Sharon Vinick -- sharon@levyvinick.com -- managing partner of
Oakland's Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams, who filed the case against
Sedgwick.

A July 26 motion to approve a $19.5 million settlement with
Qualcomm Inc. said the seven lead plaintiffs put their "careers
and livelihoods at risk."

Many of the women who have sued were fired or laid off for
complaining about gender discrimination.  In the Chadbourne case,
Campbell said she was terminated in February after the management
committee decided her practice wasn't a good fit anymore for the
firm.  Now, she said, "prospective firms and recruiters are
reluctant to work with a partner in a dispute with her current law
firm."

On Sept. 12, more than a dozen of the firm's partners wrote a
letter to plaintiffs attorney David Sanford saying they didn't
want to be part of the class.  But at least one other former
partner has since joined the case.

"No one is forced kicking and screaming into a lawsuit they don't
believe in or don't want to participate in," said Mr. Sanford,
chairman of Sanford Heisler in Washington.  "They have every right
to refuse to opt in, or affirmatively opt out of the case."


* Thailand Allows Class Action Litigation for First Time
--------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Chatsuthiphan, Esq. -- jimmy.chatsuthiphan@dlapiper.com --
and Soham Panchamiya, Esq., of DLA Piper LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that at the end of last year, the civil procedure
rules in Thailand were amended to allow class action litigation to
be brought in Thailand for the first time.  The first class action
lawsuit in Thailand has since been brought against the operator of
a goldmine in central Thailand on behalf of local residents,
alleging various breaches of environmental legislation, and
claiming damages for the losses caused by the escape of heavy
metals and other toxins.

The level of damages claimed by each plaintiff is relatively low,
approximately USD 40,000, but with a class of 300 or more
plaintiffs, the total value of the claim rises to approximately
USD 13 million with a further potential 30% in costs.  The case is
being supported by the Lawyers Council of Thailand and is being
viewed as something of a test case.

These developments may be of particular concern as numerous
companies in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector have had
to defend against significant class action lawsuits brought by
consumers in the US and in other jurisdictions.

What is a class action?

In simple terms, a typical class action is a court proceeding
where there is a group or class of plaintiffs who have been harmed
or damaged by the acts (or omissions) of a common defendant.  One
significant difference between class actions and litigation with
multiple plaintiffs is that in a class action, all members of a
class are effectively automatically represented in the relevant
litigation case unless a member exercises his/her option to exit
the class.

A 'class action' is defined in the amended civil procedure rules
as a civil court proceeding where a plaintiff is allowed to sue a
defendant both to pursue his interests, as well as the interests
of others who constitute a 'class' of people like him . The Act
defines 'class' as a group of persons having identical rights
arising from common issues of fact and law, as well as possessing
certain unique characteristics specific to the class, even if
their claimed damages may be different.

What to expect?

The types of claims against businesses which are made possible
include torts, breaches of contract, and cases brought under
environmental, consumer protection, labor, securities and stock
exchange and trade competition laws.

The Thai class action proceeding has much in common with class
actions in the US, where there is an established right of recourse
for plaintiffs.  Possible claims could be:

   -- patients prescribed a prescriptive drug with health damaging
effects

   -- consumers who have purchased the same defective product or
were deceived by false advertising

   -- consumers or small business owners who have suffered as a
result of price fixing

  -- employment claims brought by employees who otherwise would
find it difficult to bring claims independently against their
employers

   -- home or business owners affected by environmental disasters
(e.g., large scale oil spills or chemical contamination)

   -- investors who have lost savings due to securities fraud.

Class actions, then, pose potentially significant risks to
businesses in all industries by opening up opportunities to
claimants who would otherwise not find it costeffective to
litigate.  High profile cases in the US have seen companies lose
millions of dollars.  For example, in the Fen-phen anti-obesity
drug class action lawsuit, a Texan manicurist was awarded USD 23.3
million by American Home Products as compensation for causing her
heart damage.  3,100 lawsuits were filed following the outcome of
this case and the class action was ultimately settled for an
estimated USD 70 million.

Environmental claims pose a similar risk. For example, following
the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the US, a class action was brought
by thousands of local workers, land owners, Alaskan natives and
others who were harmed by the spill.  Exxon Valdez were initially
ordered to pay punitive damages of USD 5 billion, which were later
reduced to USD 500 million (plus interest).

Class actions permeate sectors and affect companies beyond the
scope of their products' liability or consumer actions.  An
example is the highly-publicized Sony hacking scandal of 2014,
where a hacker group leaked confidential data from Sony Pictures
Entertainment including details about employees, their families,
email correspondence, and salary information, among other things.
Soon after, Sony employees launched a class action lawsuit and an
undisclosed settlement was eventually reached.  As seen in this
case, in an increasingly technological world, data breaches and
cybersecurity have become key concerns for any modern business
that stores confidential information electronically.

Thai Class Actions v US Class Actions

The recent amendments to the civil procedure rules are intended to
emulate the system currently in place in the US, with a few key
differences.

   -- In the US, as with other common law jurisdictions, there
exists a process of pre-trial discovery whereby the courts, as
well as the parties, gather all of the evidence necessary to
establish a 'class certification' so that the claim can proceed.
Thai law, however, places the onus on the parties to assume this
process, with judicial officers collecting and reviewing the
evidence to determine if class certification is warranted.

  -- In the US, an attorney is highly incentivized to establish a
'class' as, once established, the stakes are typically too high to
go to court.  With settlements reaching the millions, or even tens
of millions, in US dollars, attorneys can look forward to
incredibly compelling fees if they apply significant resources to
uncover often expensive evidence on contingent fee arrangements.
However, under Thai law, 'success fees' or contingent fee
arrangements have been held to be against public morals and
prohibited by the courts.  Therefore, we cannot envision the same
incentive existing for a Thai lawyer or judicial officer to gather
evidence to justify a class certification.  The class
certification stage is, by far, the most important stage in a
class action proceeding.

   -- Under the Thai regime, defendants may be held liable for
plaintiffs' legal fees for up to 30% of the judgment amount (and
there is no corresponding award for defendants).  However, given
the culture of typically low legal fee awards made by the Thai
courts, it is difficult to envision a lawyer determined to make a
living on, or even apply sufficient resources to, a class action
practice.

   -- It would also be difficult for a lawyer in Thailand to make
an educated risk assessment on whether or not to accept a class
action case in a legal system without binding case law. Compare
this with the US, in which there is a significant body of
precedential class action cases that bind subsequent cases
involving similar issues.

   -- Unlike in the US, there is no jury system in Thailand.
Juries in the US are sometimes swayed by emotion and might overly
sympathize with a class action plaintiff challenging a large
corporation.  In Thailand, however, it is the judge who will
decide the case.

   -- Further, unlike in the US, the class of plaintiffs can only
be subdivided on the grounds of differing damages.  This could
have interesting implications in terms of judicial process. Rather
than being divided on points of law or points of fact, plaintiffs
can only submit separate charges based on the nature of their
injuries.  This may cause problems for plaintiffs looking to
establish 'class status'.

Given the above, it is difficult to predict both the judicial
approach, and that of the legal industry, to class actions in
Thailand.  The test case that is now pending in Thai court will be
telling.

What can be done?

There is certainly much to consider.  Those in high risk
industries may start evaluating their Thai operations in light of
the risk of class actions -- it pays to be prepared

There are a few places one might look:

   -- Insurance coverage  --  conduct a risk assessment in light
of the Thai class action regime and re-evaluate your policies to
ensure adequate coverage levels.

   -- The Thai minimum requirements to which companies must adhere
so as to avoid the risk of class action lawsuits by employees --
it is worth noting that Thailand has firmly established labor
unions and employee groups that will welcome the change.

   -- The types of procedures and criteria that US entities
already have in place to mitigate the risk of class actions. Extra
precautions might be considered such as changing warning labels or
providing additional disclosure in advertisements.

Moreover, special attention should be paid to relevant class
actions brought in other jurisdictions since now a similar case
could also be brought in Thailand using the same evidence.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Floyd"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the action styled Jerry Floyd, v.
Asbestos Corporation, LTD, et aI., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
05382-JST (N.D. Calif.), as to defendants Asbestos Corporation,
Ltd., and CBS Corporation.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's October 25, 2016, Order with
respect to Asbestos Corporation is available at
https://is.gd/X0T2yw from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's October 25, 2016, Order with
respect to CBS Corporation is available at https://is.gd/yqYQXY
from Leagle.com.

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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Bristol" Remanded to Missouri State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part Plaintiff Nola H. Bristol's motion to remand her asbestos-
related lawsuit to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,
Missouri.

The motion is granted to the extent it seeks remand of the action
to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.  The
motion is denied to the extent it seeks an award of costs, fees,
expenses, and sanctions.  In denying the request for award of
costs, Judge Ross held that while an award of costs and fees under
Section 1447(c) of 28 U.S.C. is appropriate where the removing
party lacked an "objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal," Ford's attempt to remove the action pursuant to Section
1446(c)'s bad-faith exception was not objectively unreasonable.

The case is NOLA H. BRISTOL, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01649-JAR (E.D. Mo.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Ross's October 27, 2016, Memorandum and Order
of Remand is available at https://is.gd/ZLS9Au from Leagle.com.

Nola H. Bristol, Plaintiff, represented by Dawn M. Besserman, Esq.
-- dbesserman@mrhfmlaw.com -- MAUNE AND RAICHLE, LLC.

Nola H. Bristol, Plaintiff, represented by Lillian Talbot, Esq. --
ltalbot@mrhfmlaw.com -- MAUNE AND RAICHLE LLC & Nathaniel D. Mudd,
Esq. -- nmudd@mrhfmlaw.com -- MAUNE AND RAICHLE LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Ben K. Upp, TURNER
AND REID, Sherry A. Rozell, TURNER AND REID & Ty Zackery Harden,
TURNER AND REID.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott,
Esq. -- rks@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lang,
PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick D.
Murphy, RASMUSSEN AND DICKEY LLC.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent
Edward Gunter, SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony L.
Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Edward S. Bott,
Jr., Esq. -- esb@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale M.
Weppner, Esq. -- dmw@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER,
PC.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Show Cause Order in "Ballard"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Ballard and Suzanne Ballard filed an asbestos
litigation action against a number of Defendants, including
Defendant Ameron International Corporation, in Alameda County
Superior Court.  Ameron removed the case to federal court on
October 20, 2016.  Now pending before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California is the Plaintiffs'
ex parte application to remand and for an award of attorneys'
fees.  Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered Ameron to
show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court and
why attorneys' fees should not be awarded.

The case is JOHN BALLARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERON
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
06074-JSC (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Corley's
Order dated October 25, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/E8iDB2
from Leagle.com.

John Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by David Lee Amell, Maune,
Raichle, Hartley, French and Mudd.

Suzanne Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by David Lee Amell, Maune,
Raichle, Hartley, French and Mudd.

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Duncan
Steven Lemmon, Foley & Mansfield PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: L.A. Jury Awards $18MM Talc Mesothelioma Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles jury has returned a record $18.07 million verdict
against asbestos-containing talc supplier Whittaker Clark &
Daniels for its role in causing California political figure Philip
Depoian's mesothelioma cancer. The jury verdict is the largest
award on record for a mesothelioma claim linked to cosmetic talc
exposure, according to trial lawyers at Dallas-based Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

The jury reached its verdict on Oct. 19 following six weeks of
trial. A second phase for punitive damages was set to resume
before the sole remaining defendant -- talc supplier Whittaker,
Clark & Daniels -- reached a confidential settlement on Oct. 26.
In agreeing to the settlement, Whittaker, Clark & Daniels avoided
the prospect of additional penalties based on the jury's finding
that it had acted with malice in marketing its talc as asbestos-
free without adequately testing the substance.

"Whittaker was the largest talc supplier in the country and was
certifying that its product contained no asbestos, but its testing
was inadequate and its certification false and misleading," said
shareholder and trial attorney Jay Stuemke of Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett.

Mr. Depoian, a longtime aide to Mayor Tom Bradley and a prominent
political figure in his own right for more than three decades, was
diagnosed in May 2015 with mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer
primarily caused by asbestos exposure. Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett attorneys successfully argued that Mr. Depoian was
exposed to asbestos in talc products at a barber shop where his
father worked and through his use of products including Old Spice,
Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc. Asbestos and talc are
natural silicate minerals often mined in the same deposits, but
asbestos can cause cancer and should not contaminate talc
products.

The jury's fault apportionment found Whittaker, Clark & Daniels 30
percent at fault.

Philip and Julie Depoian were represented at trial by shareholders
Jay Stuemke and Stuart Purdy.

The case is Philip John Depoian and Julie Pastor Depoian vs.
American International Industries, et al., filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court, No. BC607192.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC is a nationally recognized
trial law firm with a reputation for creative and aggressive
representation of its clients in mesothelioma, catastrophic injury
and product liability cases nationwide. For more information,
visit http://sgpblaw.com.

Contact Robert Tharp at 800-559-4534 or Robert@androvett.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Workers Urged to Speak Up on Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Eccles, writing for North-West Evening Mail, reported that the
widow of a shipyard worker who died from lung cancer linked to
asbestos exposure wants to know why more wasn't done to protect
him as figures predict fatality rates will peak by 2018.

Kay Eccles from Broughton lost her husband Sam, 85, in February
following a year long battle with lung cancer.

At the inquest held in Barrow on September 14, a coroner ruled
that the painter and decorator's cause of death was industrial
disease sparking an appeal from his family who are now urging
former Vickers Armstrong employees to come forward and speak up
about asbestos.

The appeal has come just as new figures released by the Office for
National Statistics revealed that mortality rates in Barrow are
almost three times the national average for mesothelioma deaths.

According to the ONS, there are 4.51 deaths for every 100,000
people -- in Barrow this figure is 11.57.

Mrs Eccles said: "Sam was always a fit and active man and was in
great health until early 2015 when he was diagnosed with lung
cancer.

"The diagnosis took us all by surprise and it was extremely hard
for us to see his health deteriorate as he battled against the
disease.

"We want to know why more wasn't done to protect him from the
risks asbestos posed to his health by Vickers Armstrong and hope
that taking legal action will help us secure justice in Sam's
name."

Mr Eccles spent more than 20 years on board ships and submarines,
often for long periods of time.

His wife explained that many other tradesmen such as joiners and
laggers were also in the dusty environments where asbestos was
used to insulate pipework.

The family hope other workers can come forward and share any
information relating to Mr Eccles' exposure to asbestos or the
safety measures put in place by the firm, and the warnings
provided to staff about the health risks associated with asbestos.

Neil Sugarman, president of the Association of Personal Injury
Lawyers said: "Areas such as Barrow, which has a high rate of
deaths from mesothelioma, are no doubt seeing the effects of past
industry where workers were negligently exposed to asbestos.

"People went to work and came home with a death sentence because
their negligent employers exposed them to asbestos.

"It's a national tragedy."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School Dist. Broke Asbestos Rules Again
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Helston, writing for InfoNews.ca, reported that another
investigation by WorkSafe B.C. found the Vernon School District in
violation of asbestos management regulations -- after it was
already warned and fined under similar circumstances.

Several orders related to an incident at the Open Door Learning
Centre were issued to the school district on June 21, almost two
months after it was fined $75,000 for exposing workers to asbestos
containing material in relation to an inspection dating back to
2015.

On May 4 -- the day after the district was fined -- an employee
conducting renovation work at the new Open Door Learning Centre
location at 3303 30 Street became concerned about what appeared to
be pre-1990 building materials which could contain asbestos,
according to WorkSafe B.C.

"Despite the worker reported concern, no work stoppage was ordered
by the employer and workers continued to be exposed to asbestos
containing materials contained in the demolition debris," WorkSafe
states in an inspection report.

On May 5, the day after the worker reported the concern, the
district took samples of the demolition debris and sent it in for
testing. Laboratory results confirmed the presence of asbestos and
the district stopped work on May 9.

WorkSafe also points out the district did not have an asbestos
inventory for the building (which was leased) and did not ensure
that a qualified person inspected the property for hazardous
materials prior to the renovation work.

A follow up inspection report in August indicates the district
reached compliance with all the orders, and provided an acceptable
asbestos exposure control plan. The report also states that based
on the violations, there are grounds for imposing an
administrative penalty, and/or Occupational Health and Safety
citation.

WorkSafe confirmed no further penalties have been issued since the
$75,000 on May 3.

"WE NEED TO ENSURE THINGS LIKE THIS DON'T HAPPEN"

By the time of the incident at Open Door, asbestos management
regulations were already on the school district's radar. The
inspection that resulted in the $75,000 fine happened in November
2015, and in response the district created a new health and safety
officer position, completed asbestos assessments for all district-
owned facilities and identified areas containing asbestos. It also
created an asbestos exposure control plan which includes training
for employees and processes to ensure a healthy and safe
workplace. But for some reason, those measures failed at Open
Door.

"We're still trying to determine what went wrong with respect to
that, because we do have an asbestos control plan in place,"
secretary-treasurer Sterling Olson says. "I'm not clear at this
point in time why some of those things failed."

He says work should have been stopped from the employer's
perspective as soon as the concern was raised, and notes workers
have been informed they have the right to refuse work in such
cases.

"We're continuing to try and review and investigate why work
continued from both of those (perspectives)," Olson says.

He says the renovation work was being done to prepare the new Open
Door Learning Centre for operation after being asked to vacate the
city-owned building it leased previously.

"This one is a little bit different and unique from the standpoint
it's not one of our district facilities. It's a leased facility so
we didn't have inventory surveys on the property," Olson says.

The understanding was that renovations after 1990 would have
already stripped asbestos from the building.

"So, work commenced on that leased property on the assumption --
and assumptions are never a good thing -- that basically the
property was free of asbestos," Olson says.

A small crew of maintenance employees were working in the building
prior to the stop work order on May 9. It's unknown if any of the
workers have, or will, suffer health impacts from the work.

"I don't know to what extent the exposure to the asbestos was as
far as any volumes. From a district perspective, we're always
concerned if employees are exposed. That's why we have asbestos
control plans in place," Olson says.

With respect to the infractions tied to the $75,000 fine, Olson
says those incidents involved cases where workers were tasked with
small maintenance jobs. He provides the example of an electrician
going into a school drilling through a wall to mount a projector -
- work that could disturb asbestos containing material.

Olson says he is not aware of any students ever being exposed to
asbestos containing material in the district.

The situation highlights the fact that school districts are not
just service providers, but employers.

"One of the challenges is our priority is on student learning.
There's continued pressure to have as much money as possible spent
on education programs. Having said that, we have a responsibility
as an employer to ensure health and safety programs are in place,"
Olson says. "It's one of those ones we may not pay as much
attention to as we should because of. . . the fight for financial
resources inside our school district."

The $75,000 fine, which the school district unsuccessfully
appealed, will be paid for out of the school's operating budget.

"If there is any sort of positive outcome, its basically
identified for us the need to improve these programs in health and
safety and made an opportunity for us to work towards that," Olson
says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City of Bayswater Confirms Asbestos Presence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toyah Shakespeare, writing for Eastern Reporter, reported that the
city of Bayswater has confirmed asbestos has been found in pieces
of cement at Skipper's Row after testing.

It also confirmed no asbestos was found in the soil disturbed
after machinery entered the site on Monday.

Mayor Barry McKenna said the City's environmental health officers
attended the site.

"During a site assessment, fragments of asbestos containing
material were found," he said.

"A soil sample taken in a disturbed area showed no signs of
asbestos.

"To alleviate any public health risk, the City requires the
landowners to provide appropriate site management plans prior to
the commencement of works."

A 'danger: asbestos' sign appeared at the D'Orazio's site on
Wednesday and it is not known who erected it.

Cr McKenna said the City of Bayswater did not put up the signs and
did not ask the owners or developers to do so.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlton Pub Owners Fined Over Asbestos Waste
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Donelly and Emily Woods, writing for The Courier, reported
that the "cowboy" developers behind the illegal demolition of a
heritage-listed pub in Carlton face further fines after missing a
deadline to cover asbestos waste dumped on a building site n
Melbourne's west.

The Environment Protection Authority on Friday confirmed it had
issued a company owned by the developers with two fresh fines
totalling more than $15,000 for failing to cover debris containing
asbestos.

Those penalties follow a $7500 fine to another company run by the
same two developers for leaving rubble exposed at the site of the
former Corkman Irish Pub.

EPA metro manager Daniel Hunt said the owners of the demolished
Corkman Irish Pub had had until 4pm Friday to cover the waste from
the hotel, which had been dumped at another site the developers
own in Cairnlea.

But the site owners did not comply with the 4pm deadline, and the
EPA says it will now have to cover the remaining waste.

In what the agency has described as an "unprecedented move" a
hygienist has been hired as a matter of urgency and the authority
said it would seek to recover costs of removing the waste through
legal action.

"While a large part of the waste has been covered, it has not all
been covered, and now EPA  will ensure it happens," Mr Hunt said.

"EPA will seek to recover the costs associated from the coverage
of the waste at the site through pending legal action it will take
against the owners of the site to hold them to account for their
actions."

If prosecuted, they face fines of more than $750,000 for dumping
construction and demolition waste illegally.

Mr Hunt said it was important to know the fines were "on top of"
pending legal action.

"EPA is continuing its investigation to hold those responsible to
account before the courts," he said.

"In gathering evidence, EPA will be looking into a range of
possible offences that have occurred under the Environment
Protection Act 1970."

The Cairnlea property is owned by Stefce Kutlesovski and Raman
Shaqiri's Cairnlea Pty Ltd.

The pair also own the former Carlton site where the historic pub
was razed on October 15 without planning or building permits.

The developers have been slammed for destroying the 159-year-old
pub, formerly known as the Carlton Inn, and are now under
investigation from the Victorian Building Authority, the City of
Melbourne, the EPA, WorkCover and Heritage Victoria.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne said the VBA and council were
looking at "several breaches" of the planning and building acts,
including building works without a permit, contravening a stop
work order and building without insurance.

"The site owners face heavy penalties from a number of government
agencies because illegal demolition is never justified," he said.

Mr Wynne has previously branded them "cavalier cowboy developers"
and Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle said destroying the pub was
"the most brazen and wanton act of destructive vandalism that I
have seen in my time as lord mayor".

Fairfax Media revealed on Thursday that the developers will be
hauled before the planning tribunal to force them to replace the
pub with another heritage-style building.

EPA and Brimbank council officers have door-knocked 72 homes near
Furlong Road in Cairnlea in the past 24 hours, and received
reports of concerns about demolition waste containing asbestos in
the area.

The EPA said air monitoring has now being conducted and shows no
asbestos fibres in the air, including at the local primary school.

Repeated attempts to contact Mr Shaqiri and Mr Kutlesovski have
failed. The public relations firm acting for the developers have
not responded to calls and emails from Fairfax Media.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $80MM Averts Asbestos Trial in Jackson County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR.org, reported that up to 7,500
people who worked in the Jackson County Courthouse after a
retrofit dispersed asbestos throughout the building will be
eligible for medical monitoring under an $80 million settlement
reached Tuesday night.

The settlement was agreed to after a jury was chosen but before
the class-action case was scheduled to go to trial today at the
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

The $80 million will be used to test people who worked in the
courthouse for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases
over the next 30 years.

The money will be paid by insurers for the principal defendant,
U.S. Engineering, and will not involve taxpayer dollars. Jackson
County was also a defendant in the case, but an agreement was
reached to dismiss it in the event a settlement was reached with
U.S. Engineering.

"It's a good day for the folks that are in the class," said Louis
Accurso, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. "On the other
hand, it's a somber day as we're all reminded that this all began
with the tragedy involving Nancy Lopez. The only thing she was
guilty of was showing up for work every day for decades at the
courthouse."

Lopez was an administrative assistant to a Jackson County judge.
She died of mesothelioma in 2010 at age 56. Her family filed a
wrongful death action against U.S. Engineering and settled the
case in 2011 for $10.4 million.

The class-action case was filed in 2010 by two now-former
courthouse workers and alleged that U.S. Engineering and Jackson
County negligently failed to prevent the spread of asbestos dust
in the courthouse.

U.S. Engineering had contracted with the county to renovate and
repair the Depression-era building's air-handling units and pipes,
which were wrapped with insulation containing asbestos. The
plaintiffs claimed the air handling units were not turned off
during the project, which took place in 1983 and 1984, resulting
in thick layers of asbestos dust being deposited throughout the
landmark structure.

The case was dealt a blow when a trial judge declined to certify
it as a class action, finding that individual issues predominated
over common ones. But last year, the Missouri Court of Appeals
overturned that decision, ruling that the judge had misinterpreted
the law. That set the stage for the trial that was averted by
Tuesday's settlement.

Members of the class consist of people who worked in the building
during and after the retrofit and people who spent 80 or more
hours a year in the building. Once the settlement is made final,
would-be class members who prove they satisfy those conditions
will be eligible for medical monitoring for asbestos-related
diseases over the next 30 years.

The medical monitoring will be performed by the University of
Kansas Medical Center.

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Tyler Nottberg, CEO of U.S.
Engineering, said that the case related to a project performed
nearly 35 years ago.

"At that time, as always, we complied with relevant industry and
regulatory safety standards in the performance of our work,"
Nottberg said.

The Jackson County Executive's office also released a statement,
saying it was pleased with the lawsuit's resolution. It said that
air quality testing conducted in 2010 and afterward confirmed that
the courthouse's air quality is now safe and meets regulatory
guidelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Top Five Best Asbestos Attorneys in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Dann Quiroz, writing for Headlines & Global News,
reported that many jobs in the U.S. are known to expose workers to
asbestos. Unfortunately, asbestos poses great threat to health and
Illinois is not an exemption. It is important to hire the best
asbestos attorneys in Illinois if you are filing a lawsuit.

Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in many materials
for its versatility. It is known for its resistance to fire,
elasticity and insulating properties. It was used in many products
from fire-proof vest to construction materials.

While 30 percent of asbestos-related cases are found in military
veterans, workers at the construction industry like plumbers,
electricians, pipe and steam fitters are vulnerable to asbestos-
related diseases. Around 80 percent of the victims are males.

It is also said that around 107,000 workers catches asbestos-
related illnesses from occupational exposure each year. Most of
them even unknowingly bring the deadly minerals to their home.
This exposes everyone around them, making them vulnerable to
illnesses as well.

The deadly cancer caused by the asbestos is called mesothelioma.
It often affects the abdomen, heart and lungs. Since its latency
period is 10 to 50 years, it takes decades from initial exposure
before any diagnosis may happen.

Most law firms are offering a free asbestos claim investigation.
Most asbestos attorneys in Illinois do not collect fees until you
get compensated. Some mesothelioma cases are settled out of court
without any trials and anyone can file a wrongful death suit on
behalf of their beloved family member who passed away due to
asbestos-related illness.

Here are the top 5 asbestos attorneys in Illinois:

Randy Gori is a partner at Gori Julian & Associates, P.C. He
handles personal injury cases, which involves in asbestos exposure
that includes mesothelioma. He has already recovered $ 1.5 billion
for his clients.

John Simmons is the founder of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC. His firm
have litigated some of the largest verdicts in the asbestos
litigation's history. He has already helped many families
nationwide, recovering $5 billion for them.


Arthur Luxenberg is a founding member of Weitz & Luxenberg PC. He
is based in New York but he also represents clients in Illinois.
He has been helping asbestos clients for 25 years.

Michael D. Carter, Jr. is form Horwitz, Horwitz and Associates,
Ltd. He was fourth at the Super Lawyers' top rated asbestos
attorneys in Chicago, Illinois. He has 31 years of experience as a
trial lawyer representing personal injury clients.

Michael W. Drumke focuses his practice on trials that involve
complex business litigation matters. He also serves as a trial
counsel for defendants in asbestos-related litigation. He is
currently at the Super Lawyers' fifth spot on top asbestos
attorneys in Illinoi in the city of Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Taskforce Probing New Mr. Fluffy House
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Burdon, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that the ACT's asbestos response taskforce is investigating the
possibility of another Mr Fluffy house being identified in
Canberra, which could bring the total list of affected properties
in the national capital to 1023.

Head of the taskforce Andrew Kefford said he was investigating the
"possibility" of new Mr Fluffy house, after it had come to the
taskforce's attention "within the last week".

The head of the ACT Asbestos Response Taskforce Andrew Kefford is
investigating a possible new Mr Fluffy house in Canberra.
The head of the ACT Asbestos Response Taskforce Andrew Kefford is
investigating a possible new Mr Fluffy house in Canberra.
Mr Kefford said it was "very much a live prospect", but could not
say more about the status of the investigation until it had been
completed.

If confirmed as a Mr Fluffy house, the building would be the
seventh such house to be identified in the ACT since the original
assessment was completed in 1980, bringing the total number of
affected homes to 1023, 412 of which have been demolished to date.

Mr Kefford said finding more Mr Fluffy homes was "something we
always said was a possibility".

"Essentially, the position since 2014 has been that we can't
categorically rule out the possibility of finding more houses," he
said.

"But we would advise that if people are contemplating doing any
work on their houses, particularly for those houses built before
the 1990s, they should seriously consider getting a professional
asbestos assessment for all types of asbestos.

"The loose-fill asbestos is a particularly dangerous form of
asbestos, but it's by no means the most common, and because so
much of Canberra was built in the period after the Second World
War, there is a higher prevalence of asbestos used as a building
material."

Mr Kefford said the taskforce had also recently surpassed its aim
of demolishing 350 houses this year, with 998 properties
participating in the demolition and buyback scheme, 979 "accepted
offers", 898 properties bought by the ACT Government.

Of the total 1022 properties identified to date, 279 properties
have been "deregistered" -- or completely demolished and had soil
testing completed to confirm they are no longer contaminated with
asbestos.

He said the taskforce was also planning another two auctions of
land that formerly housed Mr Fluffy homes, and the government
would continue to release more blocks to the end of this year.

"In parallel to that, we're working through about 314 first right
of refusals for former owners to go through as well," he said.

Mr Kefford said the current estimate of the cost the ACT
Government would face, after the $1 billion loan from the
Commonwealth, remained at $366 million, consistent with the figure
published earlier this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Rejects Take-Home Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
Arizona has joined the list of states refusing to allow claims for
what's called "take-home" asbestos exposure.

In the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision in Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc.,
issued in September, the court affirmed a trial court's ruling
granting an asbestos defendant's motion for summary judgement in a
case in which the plaintiffs alleged their decedent contracted
mesothelioma from repeat exposure to asbestos fibers brought home
on his father's clothing.

His father allegedly worked with asbestos-containing products at
the defendant's factory, resulting in a claim known as "take-home"
exposure.

But the court found that a premises owner has no duty to the child
of an employee in such a "take-home" asbestos exposure case. In
fact, the court distinguished Arizona law from other states in
that it doesn't consider foreseeability of injury in determining
whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care, said Dennis
Dobbels, attorney with Polsinelli PC.

Dobbels said the court also declined to apply the interpretation
in a Restatement of Torts, specifically sections 371 and 54,
because such an application would change Arizona's long-standing
approach to negligence law by effectively eliminating duty as one
of the required elements of a negligence claim.

"The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that finding no
duty in 'take-home' cases would violate public policy
considerations," Dobbels told Legal Newsline.

"In doing so, the court expressed concern over the potential for
limitless liability for defendants."

However, Dobbels said it seems that the court invited the
plaintiff to appeal, noting that it was following prior precedent
and any changes would need to be made by the Arizona Supreme
Court.

"So one can conclude that the court itself is inviting the
plaintiff to appeal to determine whether the Arizona Supreme Court
would continue to follow its past policies on determination of
duty," he said.

"While it might not seem fair to those who have allegedly obtained
mesothelioma in a 'take-home' situation, fairness is something
determined based upon the law of the jurisdiction.

"It would be unfair for a court to, out of hope, create new law on
which everyone has relied in the past for how they conduct their
business and personal affairs. So when we look at fairness, it's a
prison we all have and it's going to be based on our moral
standards."

Dobbels said it will be interesting to see how other courts will
rule in these types of cases going forward.

"The court identified two trends. One is that those saying
foreseeability is an important component for determining duty and
those states that do not. It'll be interesting to see where the
trend goes at this point," he said.

As far as how this will impact asbestos attorneys' attempts to
assist clients in Arizona, Dobbels said that remains to be seen,
too.

"The reason is choice-of-law issues. It's important for a court to
decide whose law applies even if someone is an 'Arizona' injured
person," he said.

"The law of another state might still apply to their case
depending upon circumstances of exposure, like where the company
is, where the defendant resides -- all those things will play a
role in determining whether Arizona law should apply. So it could
have an impact, but it may not necessarily be fatal to someone who
is an Arizona plaintiff."




                            *********

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  * * *