CAR_Public/161111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 226




                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: "Bean" Suit Alleges Contact Lens Price-Fixing
106 GREENWICH: "Halili" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
ABSOLUTE LAWN: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Bridges" Suit
AKORN INC: Faces AF of L Suit Over Sale of Generic Clobetasol
ALLERGAN PLC: "Arslanian" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations

ALSALAM INC: Rodriguez Moves for Conditional Class Certification
AMERICAN HONDA: Certification of Class Sought in "Jeffers" Suit
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Customers Drop Class Action Over Hep C Drug
APRO LLC: "Tzul" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: KBC Asset Sues Over SSA Bond Price-Fixing

BAXTER INT'L: Wash. Cty. Sues Over IV Solution Price-Fixing
BLEIBURG RESTAURANT: Faces "Cruz" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
BLUE SHIELD: Faces "Mandala" Suit Over ADR Denial to Clients
BOK FINANCIAL: Reached $7.8MM Settlement of Class Action
C&J ENERGY: Shareholders Seek to Revive Class Suit Over Merger

CEMPRA INC: Faces "Hirtenstein" Securities Class Suit
CHAMPION CONFUCIUS: "Barzola" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Laws
CHICAGO, IL: Residents File Class Action Over Home-Sharing Rules
CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Louisiana Police's Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Appeal Filed in Depositary Receipts Litigation

CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Baker et al. v. Bank of America
CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan
CONSOL ENERGY: Summary Judgment for "Hummel" Plaintiffs Affirmed
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Appeal of Settlement Approval Nixed
EI DU PONT: Chance Moves to Certify Non-Exempt Workers Class

EXXONMOBIL: Faces "Ramirez" Shareholder Suit in Dallas
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Mobley" Class Suit Over Advertising Bias
FORSTER & GARBUS: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Douglass" Denied
GAS NATURAL: Shareholders File Class Suit Over FR Bison Merger
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Faverman" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal

GOHEALTH LLC: Rafano Seeks to Certify Four Classes of Consumers
HEALTH CARE SERVICE: "Briscoe" Sues Over Lactation Benefit Access
HERCULES FORWARDING: "Happel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
IMAAN INTERNATIONAL: "Lopez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
INFINITY DESIGN: "Fuentes" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA

INTEGRATED PAIN: Insurers' Duty to Defend Not Triggered
INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Underway
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement Deal in "Krimes" Suit Has Initial Okay
LA CHECKER CAB: Fails to Protect Cardholders, "Noble" Suit Claims
LE BILBOQUET NY: Accused by "Alonso" Class Suit of Violating FLSA

MARATHON OIL: Faces "Baucum" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
MAX'S CAR: Faces "Whyte" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MCCLOUD GROUP: "Taylor" Suit Alleges Violation of NY Labor Law
MDL 2262: Citigroup Seeks Case Dismissal
MDL 2555: Discovery Requests in Marketing Suit Partly Granted

MICHIGAN: Burley Can't Participate in "McBride" Suit
MILLER AND STEENO: Dilallo Renews Bid for Class Certification
NEW YORK: Board of Elections Sued Over Voters' Rights
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Funded $3MM of Settlement Amount in "Davida"
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit v. Breg Underway

PACIFIC DENTAL: Gutierrez Alleges Systematic Scheme of Wage Abuse
PRIME AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Murillo" Suit Over Employment Practices
SAINTS & SANTOS: Castellanos Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
SANTA FE, TEXAS: Runs Debtors' Prison, "West" Suit Claims
SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Files New Class Action Complaint

SENTRY INSURANCE: Court Awards Atty's Fees in "Coleman" Suit
SILVER WHEATON: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Summary Judgment Bids in Bag Fee Suit Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Air Fare Suit in NY Denied
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Time to Respond to Canada Suits Still Open

SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Maloney Moves for Certification of Class
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: "Leibs" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation
SYNGENTA AG: Grosvenor Farms Files Suit Over VIPTERA False Ad
TELPLEX COMMUNICATIONS: Mirage Tile Sues Over False Advertising
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Suit by Registered Nurses Remains Pending

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "Galmi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breaches
TREMBLAY PAINTING: Faces "Aiello" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
TWITTER INC: Investors Sue Over Stock-Based Compensation
UNITED STATES: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Federal Election
VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Certification of Class Sought in "Morgan" Suit

VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Upheld
VIGO IMPORTING: Must Defend Against "Fonseca" Suit, Judge Says
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Smith Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime
VOODOO INC: "Mireles" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
WESTON EDUCATIONAL: "Evans" Action Seeks to Recover Back Pay

WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Agreed to Settle Case for $151MM
WOOD GROUP: "Kibodeaux" Alleges Non-Payment of Overtime Wages

* Labaton Sucharow Grows Practices in New York and Delaware


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Sanctions in "Lund" Terminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Legeaux"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in "Zellner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Review Summary Judgment Grant to AT&T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Rescind Remand Order in "Hammell" Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Woman Sues Over Talc Powder Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Over Lung Cancer in California
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Project Site in Stratford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma May Have Caught Cancer From Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies From Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Improper Asbestos Disposal Has Serious Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Settles $126-Mil. Asbestos Dispute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $12.5MM Against Caterpillar Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Asbestos Debtors Dismissal Sought
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. High Court Affirms Dismissal of "Deggs"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cuba's Continued Asbestos Use Raises Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found in Cairnlea
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 23 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 280 PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Has $22.9MM Liabilities at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $936MM Asbestos Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Still Defends 840 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Adjusts Liability by $23 Million
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Oct1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 60 Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Pays $300K to AMEC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 2,540 Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 3,753 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,707 Claims at Sept. 30


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: "Bean" Suit Alleges Contact Lens Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa Bean, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05726 (E.D. Pa., November 2, 2016), seeks disgorgement of
ill-gotten gains, actual and treble damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and disbursements including reasonable attorneys' fees and such
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Sherman Act and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

1-800 Contacts is an online retailer of contact lenses. It
allegedly secured agreements with at least 14 competing online
sellers of contact lenses ensuring that the parties would not bid
against one another in certain search advertising auctions.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB &HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
             rhonik@golombhonik.com
             kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
             dstanoch@golombhonik.com


106 GREENWICH: "Halili" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Rame Halili, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 106 Greenwich, LLC, 110 Greenwich LLC, 110
Greenwich I LLC, 110 Greenwich Ii LLC, Torkian Group LLC, Torkian
Manager, Corp, Torkian Office, LLC, Torkian Realty, LLC, Hersel
Torkian, Benjamin Torkian and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-08535 (S.D. N.Y., November 2, 2016), seeks unpaid
compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, compensation for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure
to provide paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act and New York Labor Laws.

106 Greenwich, LLC is a New York corporation located at 1650
Broadway, Suite 910, New York, NY 10019. It, and its affiliates,
owns and manages a residential building located at 106 Greenwich
Avenue, New York, NY 10011.

The Torkian group owns and manage various properties located
throughout New York City.

Plaintiff worked as a building superintendent/porter at both 110
Greenwich Street and 106 Greenwich Street establishments. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUAN M. GONZALEZ
      8918 Tesoro Dr., Ste. 575
      San Antonio, TX 78217
      Tel: (210) 587-4002
      Fax: (210) 587-4001
      Email: jgonzalez@mgo-law.com

             - and -

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


ABSOLUTE LAWN: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Bridges" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown entered an order in the lawsuit
styled TONY BRIDGES, et al. v. ABSOLUTE LAWN CARE LA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00448-NJB-JCW (E.D. La.), granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and class certification.  The Court conditionally
certifies two classes under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   (1) "All former and current employees [of Absolute Lawn Care]
       whose purported "bonus" . . . was not included in their
       regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime under
       the FLSA and/or who did not receive or had deductions to
       their attendance/productivity "bonus" which had the effect
       of reducing their overtime rate to less than 1 1/2 times
       their regular rate of pay ("the Overtime Rate
       Collective");" and


   (2) "All former and current employees [of Absolute Lawn Care]
       who ostensibly were classified as independent contractors
       . . . and were paid only their straight-time rate of pay
       . . . for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek ("the
       Misclassification Collective")."

The Court did not, however, approve the content and form of the
Plaintiffs' proposed judicial notice or 90-day notice period at
this time and, instead, orders the parties to meet, discuss, and
report back regarding the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent
to sue forms, Plaintiffs' proposed notice period, and all other
matters related to the conveyance of judicial notice.

As to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will not
certify Plaintiffs' two putative classes at this time.  Finally,
the Court denies the Plaintiffs' limited discovery motion as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kgkWxwg5


AKORN INC: Faces AF of L Suit Over Sale of Generic Clobetasol
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AKORN, INC., HI-TECH
PHARMACAL CO., INC., FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC.,
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., WOCKHARDT LTD. and MORTON GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case
No. 1:16-cv-08469 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2016), alleges violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the laws
of the several states over the sale of clobetasol.

The Case is brought on behalf of U.S. consumers and health
insurers -- commonly referred to as End-Payors, i.e. the last in
line in the chain of distribution -- concerning their purchases of
generic versions of clobetasol propionate in its cream, ointment,
gel and topical solution forms in the United States from June 3,
2014, to present.

Clobetasol is a potent topical corticosteroid used for the
treatment of a variety of inflammatory skin conditions (including
eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis and vitiligo) and one of the most
prescribed dermatological drugs in the United States.

Akorn, Inc., is a Louisiana corporation with its principal place
of business in Lake Forest, Illinois.  Akorn holds itself out as a
niche pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture and marketing of multisource and branded
pharmaceuticals.  Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Inc. is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in Amityville,
New York.  Hi-Tech markets and sells generic Clobetasol throughout
the United States.  In April 2014, Hi-Tech was acquired for $640
million by Akorn.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York.  Fougera
markets and sells generic Clobetasol throughout the United States.
Fougera was purchased in 2012 for $1.525 billion by Novartis AG
through Novartis's Sandoz, Inc. subsidiary.

Sandoz, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of
business in Princeton, New Jersey.  Sandoz, a subsidiary of
Novartis AG, develops, produces and markets generic
pharmaceuticals, including generic Clobetasol, throughout the
United States.  In July 2012, Sandoz acquired Fougera for $1.525
billion.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is an Israeli company with its
principal place of business in Haifa Bay, Israel.  Taro Ltd.
develops, manufactures and markets prescription drugs, including
generic Clobetasol, throughout the United States.  Taro Ltd.
operates in the United States principally through its subsidiary,
Defendant Taro Inc.  Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in Hawthorne, New
York.  Taro Inc. markets and sells generic Clobetasol throughout
the United States.  Taro Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Taro
Ltd.

Wockhardt Ltd., an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactures, markets and
sells generic drugs, including Clobetasol, throughout the United
States.  Wockhardt maintains manufacturing plants and substantial
operations in the United States, and operates U.S.-based
subsidiary pharmaceutical company Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., of which Wockhardt owns 100% and acquired in October 2007.

Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Morton Grove, Illinois.  Morton Grove is a
pharmaceutical company that manufactures, markets and sells
generic drugs, including Clobetasol, throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Erin C. Durba, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  edurba@motleyrice.com


ALLERGAN PLC: "Arslanian" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINA ARSLANIAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN PLC, ACTAVIS PLC,
PAUL M. BISARO, ROBERT TODD JOYCE, BRENTON L. SAUNDERS, and MARIA
TERESA HILADO, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08254 (C.D. Cal.,
November 4, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act in relation to disclosures it made in its Form 10-K filing for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

Allergan plc (formerly known as Actavis plc), is a specialty
pharmaceutical company, that develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter
pharmaceutical products worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALSALAM INC: Rodriguez Moves for Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Rodriguez moves for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs in his lawsuit captioned CRISTIAN
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. ALSALAM, INC., ARIYAN, INC., DISCOUNT MAX 2, INC., and
AHMAD DORRY, Case No. 2:16-cv-06453-CJB-JCW (E.D. La.).

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oWe0wEGe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Certification of Class Sought in "Jeffers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT JEFFERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA
FINANCE CORP., Case No. 2:15-cv-03181-MSG (E.D. Pa.), asks the
Court to enter an order holding the class determination issue in
abeyance though permitting the interim motion for class
certification to serve as a placeholder motion to preclude an
anticipated attempt by the Defendant to moot the class action.

The consumer protection class action seeks monetary relief to
redress, inter alia, Defendant's pattern and practice of
commercially unreasonable practices in violation of the Uniform
Commercial Code, according to the Motion.

Mr. Jeffers also asks the Court that he be appointed as class
representative and that Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, be appointed
counsel for the class.  He also requests leave to amend or
supplement the Motion and any related briefs that are filed later
with additional information that is gained from class discovery
which would clarify and augment the relevant issues.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jU5392Uq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Customers Drop Class Action Over Hep C Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Anthem Blue Cross customers dropped their class action
against the insurer after the company reversed its policy of
refusing to cover a revolutionary treatment that cures most cases
of hepatitis C.

Lead plaintiff Marina Sheynberg filed a federal class action in
San Francisco, against Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance
Company in July 2015.  She claimed the insurer denied coverage of
a medically necessary treatment, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Harvoni, a once-daily prescription pill that cured 94 to 99
percent of hepatitis C patients in clinical studies, was approved
by the FDA in 2014.  Prior to its approval, the standard hepatitis
C treatment was a three-drug cocktail with a 70 percent cure rate
that cost $170,000 and came with a barrage of negative side
effects.  Harvoni costs $99,000 for 12 weeks of treatment, with
few or no harmful side effects.

Sheynberg complained that Anthem denied her and others coverage
for the revolutionary treatment, claiming her test results showed
she lacked sufficient scarring and liver damage to qualify.

"Anthem left Ms. Sheynberg to live with daily pain, depression and
chronic fatigue, and to wait until her liver drastically worsened
before Anthem would approve the medication," the 37-page complaint
states.

After Sheynberg and others sued, Anthem reversed its policy and
agreed to expand coverage of the wonder drug starting Jan. 1,
2016.

In a joint statement filed with the court on Aug. 31, attorneys
for Anthem and the plaintiff class said the insurer had "revised
its prior authorization criteria" and would cover Harvoni for all
hepatitis C patients after six months of diagnosis.

Anthem said it would send notices to all of its members in
California who have been denied coverage, and will retroactively
approve their claims for treatment.

"In light of this, the parties do not believe a formal class
settlement or approval is required," the attorneys told the court
in their Aug. 31 statement.

On Oct. 31, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria approved the
parties' voluntary dismissal of the class action with prejudice.

Sheynberg's attorney, Glen Kantor of Kantor & Kantor in
Northridge, declined to comment on the dismissal.

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng said in a statement: "Given
the concerns and relative benefits and harms, our former policy
applied to members in the most advanced stages of liver disease
and those at highest risk for liver complications. After ongoing
clinical review of the medical evidence and safety concerns
surrounding hepatitis C treatments, effective January 1, 2016,
Anthem revised its prior authorization criteria for employer and
individual health plans to expand coverage for six of the newer
oral hepatitis C treatments (Harvoni, Sovaldi, Olysio, Daklinza,
Viekira Pak and Technivie), to those in all stages of liver
fibrosis, with a few clinical conditions."

Hepatitis C is a viral liver infection, transmitted by blood that
affects 2.7 to 3.9 million Americans and at least 130 million
people globally, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the World Health Organization.


APRO LLC: "Tzul" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM R. TZUL on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. APRO, LLC, a limited liability company; RAPID GAS, INC., a
California corporation; UNITED OIL, business entity unknown; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC639050 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., October 31, 2016), is a wage and hour class action
lawsuit on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees of
the Defendants in California seeking to recover, among other
things, unpaid overtime wages based on failure to include
commission in calculating the regular rate of pay, and wages for
workdays the Defendants failed to provide all legally required and
legally compliant meal periods.

APRO, LLC, is a limited liability company authorized to do
business within the state of California, and is doing business in
the state of California.  The Company, doing business as United
Oil, operates convenience store and gas stations in Northern
California, Southern California, Colorado, Washington, Nevada and
Oregon.  The Company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Rapid Gas, Inc., incorporated in California with headquarters in
California, is authorized to do business within the state of
California, and is doing business in the state of California.
United Oil is authorized to do business within the state of
California, and is doing business in the state of California.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: KBC Asset Sues Over SSA Bond Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.;
CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.; CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND
INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT
SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE
BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC.;
NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
HIREN GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN PAU; and BHARDEEP SINGH
HEER, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08621 (S.D.N.Y., November 4,
2016), is an antitrust class action charging the Defendant banks
with conspiring to fix the prices of supranational, sub-sovereign,
and agency (SSA) bonds in violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are banking and financial institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
     Erin C. Durba, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 577-0040
     Fax: (212) 577-0054
     Email: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
            edurba@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     William H. Narwold
     20 Church Street
     Hartford, CT 06103
     Phone: (860) 882-2676
     Email: bnarwold@motleyrice.com


BAXTER INT'L: Wash. Cty. Sues Over IV Solution Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON COUNTY HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, INC. d/b/a WASHINGTON
COUNTY HOSPITAL & NURSING HOME, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.;
BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; HOSPIRA, INC. and HOSPIRA
WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10324 (N.D. Ill.,
November 3, 2016), alleges a conspiracy among the major U.S.
manufacturers of a critical medical product, intravenous ("IV")
saline solution, to restrict output and artificially fix, raise,
maintain and/or stabilize the prices of IV Saline Solution sold
throughout the United States under the pretext of a supply
shortage, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to a Courthouse News Service report, Washington County
Health Care Authority claims that it paid artificially inflated
prices for intravenous saline solution because Baxter
International fixed prices under the guise of a supply shortage.

Baxter International Inc. -- http:/www.baxter.com/ -- is a health
care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
     Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Fax: (224) 632-4521
     E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
             wlondon@fklmlaw.com
             dmillen@fklmlaw.com
             rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

        - and -

     Hollis Salzman, Esq.
     Kellie Lerner, Esq.
     Eamon O'Kelly, Esq.
     Meegan F. Hollywood, Esq.
     Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 980-7400
     Fax: (212) 980-7499
     E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
             klerner@robinskaplan.com
             eokelly@robinskaplan.com
             mhollywood@robinskaplan.com
             mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com

        - and -

     Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 349-8500
     Fax: (612) 339-4181
     E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com


BLEIBURG RESTAURANT: Faces "Cruz" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Galo Cruz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bleiburg Restaurant Inc., a/k/a Keens
Steakhouse, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08626 (S.D.N.Y., November
6, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case was also filed under the
New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law.

Bleiburg Restaurant Inc. -- http://www.keens.com-- was engaged in
the food and restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


BLUE SHIELD: Faces "Mandala" Suit Over ADR Denial to Clients
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mandala, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Shield of California, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 639085 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, November 3, 2016), arises out of
defendant Blue Shield of California's alleged practice of denying
services for two-level cervical artificial disc replacement on the
basis that such services are "investigational."

Blue Shield is a "health care service plan" licensed by the
Department of Managed Health Care and subject to the relevant
provisions of the Health & Safety Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
     Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
     Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
     GIANELLI & MORRIS
     550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 489-1600
     Fax: (213) 489-1611


BOK FINANCIAL: Reached $7.8MM Settlement of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Class
Representatives and the Bank have reached a settlement of the
class action for $7.8 million.

On March 3, 2015, the Bank and the Company were named as
defendants in a class action alleging (1) that the manner in which
the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was
improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period
after which the Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class action
respecting a similar claim, and before it made changes to its
posting order and (2) that the manner in which the Bank posted
charges to its small business deposit accounts was improper from
July 9, 2009 through July 8, 2014.

Following mediation of the case in August 2016, the Class
Representatives and the Bank reached a settlement of the action
for $7.8 million. The settlement is subject to the approval of the
Court which the Parties to the Action expect.

Management has established an accrual for the settlement.


C&J ENERGY: Shareholders Seek to Revive Class Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reported that C&J
Energy Services Inc. shareholders on Nov. 7 declared that
Delaware's Chancery Court had created a "dangerous policy" in
dismissing a class challenge to the company's allegedly conflicted
$2.9 billion merger with Nabors Industries Ltd.

In an opening brief in Delaware Supreme Court seeking reversal of
the dismissal order, the investors argued that Delaware Chancellor
Andre G. Bouchard wrongly overlooked "an extreme set of facts"
when he wrote in his August class dismissal opinion that the
business judgments of company directors were entitled to
deference.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter, C&J Energy
Services, Inc. -- Legacy C&J -- and Nabors on March 24, 2015,
completed the combination of Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion
and production services business (the "C&P Business"), whereby
Legacy C&J became a subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the
"Merger"). The resulting combined company is currently led by the
former management team of Legacy C&J.

Upon the closing of the Merger, shares of common stock of Legacy
C&J were converted into common shares of C&J on a 1-for-1 basis
and C&J's common shares began trading on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the ticker "CJES." C&J is the successor
issuer to Legacy C&J following the closing of the Merger and is
deemed to succeed to Legacy C&J's reporting history under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
Legacy C&J and Nabors determined that Legacy C&J possessed the
controlling financial interest in C&J and subsequently concluded
the business combination should be treated as a reverse
acquisition with Legacy C&J as the accounting acquirer.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Legacy C&J, Nabors,
and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of
Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation").

Plaintiff in the Shareholder Litigation generally alleges that the
board of directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith, candor and independence by
allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and
through an unfair process. Plaintiff alleges that the Legacy C&J
board directors, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform
themselves of the market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value
and obtain the best price reasonably available for Legacy C&J,
(ii) acted in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected
barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put
their personal interests ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J
shareholders. The Shareholder Litigation further alleges that
Legacy C&J, Nabors and New C&J aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of directors.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a
bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014,
that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of
directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals
to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that
was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy
C&J from holding its shareholder meeting until it had complied
with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of
proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent
negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not
constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect.

Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it
simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of
Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On
November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the
Court of Chancery's order, the Legacy C&J board of directors
established a special committee, which retained separate legal and
financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation.

On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and
vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee
immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order.
On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described, that (i) the special committee of the
Legacy C&J board of directors and its advisors improperly
conducted the court-ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme
Court vacated and (ii) the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits
allegedly material information concerning the Merger and court-
ordered solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserts,
in addition to the claims described, claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against the special committee of the Legacy C&J board of
directors, its financial advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain
employees of Legacy C&J. The defendants in the Shareholder
Litigation have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

                      About C&J Energy

C&J Energy Services -- http://www.cjenergy.com/-- is a provider
of well construction, well completions, well support and other
complementary oilfield services to oil and gas exploration and
production companies. As one of the largest completion and
production services companies in North America, C&J offers a full,
vertically integrated suite of services involved in the entire
life cycle of the well, including directional drilling, cementing,
hydraulic fracturing, cased-hole wireline, coiled tubing, rig
services, fluids management services and other special well site
services. C&J operates in most of the major oil and natural gas
producing regions of the continental United States and Western
Canada.

C&J Energy Services Ltd. and 14 of its subsidiaries each filed a
voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 16-33590) on July 20, 2016.  The Debtors'
cases are pending before Judge David R. Jones.


CEMPRA INC: Faces "Hirtenstein" Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN HIRTENSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CEMPRA, INC., PRABHAVATHI B.
FERNANDES, and MARK W. HAHN, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-1303
(M.D.N.C., November 4, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act in relation to Defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, in particular, with regards to its lead
product candidate solithromycin (CEM-101).

According to a Courthouse News Service report, a shareholder class
action claims Cempra and its executives failed to disclose that an
antibiotic it developed to treat bacterial pneumonia and
urethritis poses significant health risks to some individuals. The
class claims when this information became public, the value of
their shares dropped from $18.65 to $7.30 in a single day.

Cempra, a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing antibiotics to meet medical needs in the treatment of
bacterial infectious diseases in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars
     Los Angeles, CA 90067, Suite 1100
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
            brian@goldberglawpc.com


CHAMPION CONFUCIUS: "Barzola" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE REYES BARZOLA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION CONFUCIUS LLC (d/b/a
CHAMPION PARKING), KENNY ROSENBLAT and ROBERT ROSENBLAT
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08620 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2016),
was brought for alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor  Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.  Plaintiff Reyes also seeks to recover back
pay and damages for violations of his rights under the Age
Discrimination in employment Act (ADEA), New York State Executive
Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Champion Parking is a parking lot owned by Kenny Rosenblat and
Robert Rosenblat.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Residents File Class Action Over Home-Sharing Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
renters claim in a federal class action that Chicago's new
ordinance regulating the use of home-sharing websites like Airbnb
makes it nearly impossible for the city's residents to host paid
guests.

The recent growth of the home-sharing phenomenon "has led to a
reaction by municipalities, including the City of Chicago, based
largely out of fear and misunderstanding, mixed with economic
protectionism from the hotel and motel industry," according to the
complaint, which was filed on November 4, in Chicago federal
court.

In June, the Chicago City Council passed the shared-housing
ordinance, which requires hosts to register with the city and
requires the websites they use to report personal and transaction
information about each of them.

The contested ordinance goes into effect Dec. 19.

Keep Chicago Livable, a home-sharing host advocate group, and
Chicago resident and Airbnb host Benjamin Wolf filed the class-
action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed subclass of Chicago hosts
who rent their properties on sites like Airbnb, VRBO, TripAdvisor,
HomeAway or FlipKey.

The lawsuit also seeks to represent a second subclass of people
who have been home-sharing guests in Chicago.

KCL and Wolf claim the new rules violate both the U.S.
Constitution and the Stored Communications Act, and place
"impossible burdens on hosts."

"With this law, the City of Chicago creates a new power for itself
unprecedented in the United States: the power to force its
citizens to forfeit their anonymity and register before they
participate socially on the internet," the complaint states,
adding that obtaining that information without consent or a
warrant is against the law.

Not only that, KCL and Wolf say the ordinance involves a slew of
confusing regulations that could leave hosts with fines of up to
$5,000 per day if they fail to follow the new rules.

"These penalties are buried inside 57 pages of dense and
impenetrable legalese that the city knew, or should know, that
ordinary citizens would never read or fully understand," the
lawsuit says.

Chicago also put a cap on how many units can be listed on home-
sharing sites for various types of buildings, according to the
complaint, and building owners and managers can add their building
to a "prohibited list" without notifying tenants or unit owners,
meaning hosts may be violating the ordinance without even knowing
it.

Hosts have to review city building and zoning lists to make sure
they are allowed to list their units and must agree to all
provisions of the ordinance, all without legal advice, the lawsuit
states.

A list of restrictions involving sanitation, food handling,
evacuation procedures and a ban on serving alcohol make it even
harder for an individual person to rent their apartment out for
the weekend, according to KCL and Wolf.

And the city is not letting all of this happen for free. Its new
ordinance includes a $10,000 annual fee per home-sharing website,
a $60 per unit fee and a 4 percent tax on all bookings that
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says will be used to combat
homelessness.

KCL and Wolf seek a preliminary injunction to stop the ordinance
from taking effect later this year, until its legality is
determined. They are represented by Shorge Kenneth Sato of Shoken
Legal Ltd. and by Reda & Des Jardins LLC.

Chicago's legal department said in a statement, "We intend to
vigorously defend this suit and the ordinance it challenges, as we
believe the plaintiffs' legal arguments lack any merit."

Similar lawsuits have been filed by residents of Austin, Texas and
Santa Monica, Calif.

Airbnb has sued both San Francisco and New York for passing
regulations that hurt its home-sharing business model.


CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Louisiana Police's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative class
action captioned LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. was filed on October
12, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. (CGMI) and CGML and various other banks. The
plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Act based on the
defendants' alleged manipulation of the supranational, sub-
sovereign, and agency bond market, and seeks disgorgement and
treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16
Civ. 07991 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Appeal Filed in Depositary Receipts Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that appeal filed in
Depositary Receipts Conversion Litigation.

Citigroup, Citibank and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) were
sued by a purported class of persons or entities who, from January
2000 to the present, are or were holders of depositary receipts
for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted
foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into U.S.
dollars. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Citibank
breached its deposit agreements by charging a spread for such
conversions.

Citi's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on
August 15, 2016, and only the breach of contract claim against
Citibank survived the motion.

Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of Citi's profits, as well as
compensatory, consequential and general damages.

An appeal of the decision as it relates to standing and statute of
limitations was filed on October 7, 2016.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9185
(S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Baker et al. v. Bank of America
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that investors in
exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced on September 26, 2016, a
suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL.
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI, as well as various
other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act,
New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law
and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange
market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to
certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request
damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes,
including treble damages where applicable. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings
under the docket number 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defendant in Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan
-----------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a complaint was
filed on August 16, 2016, against Citigroup, Citibank, and 16
other banks in an action captioned DENNIS, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO., ET AL. asserting common law claims, as well as
violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims
are based on allegations that the banks conspired to manipulate
the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate. The plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive relief, disgorgement, and damages, including treble
damages where applicable. Additional information concerning this
action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 16 Civ. 06496 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.).


CONSOL ENERGY: Summary Judgment for "Hummel" Plaintiffs Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the Circuit
Court of Marshall County's order which granted summary judgment
for the plaintiffs in the case captioned CONSOL ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant Below, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL HUMMEL, et al., Plaintiffs
Below, Respondents, No. 15-1040 (W. Va.).

CONSOL is a Delaware corporation engaged in the natural gas and
coal business and conducts mining operations in West Virginia.
The plaintiffs are coal miners who were employed by CONSOL's
subsidiary, Consolidated Coal Company, or by one of Consolidated's
own subsidiary corporations.  Each plaintiff worked at one of five
underground mines in northern West Virginia.

The plaintiffs were participants in CONSOL's Equity Incentive
Plan.  Under the Plan, the plaintiffs were awarded units of
CONSOL's common stock, known as Restricted Stock Units (RSUs),
which vested in three equal, annual installments, measured from
the award date, over the plaintiffs' period of continued
employment.  Only CONSOL and not any of its subsidiaries issued
the stock under the Plan.

On December 5, 2013, CONSOL sold Consolidated Coal Company and
Consolidated's subsidiaries to Ohio Valley Resources, Inc. and
Ohio Valley's parent company, Murray Energy Corporation.  At the
time of the sale, the plaintiffs had been awarded RSUs.

In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court of Marshall County, alleging that CONSOL was in breach of
contract for failing to accelerate the vesting of the previously
awarded RSUs and for failing to deliver the RSUs to the plaintiffs
by the date required under the Award Agreement.  The plaintiffs
asserted that they were entitled to accelerated vesting of the
unvested portion of the RSUs pursuant to the Award Agreement
because a "change in control" occurred when CONSOL sold
Consolidated Coal Company.

CONSOL, however, maintained that the sale did not constitute a
"change in control" under the Award Agreement or the Equity
Incentive Plan.  CONSOL contended that the accelerating event
"change in control" relates solely to CONSOL itself, not its
former subsidiary, Consolidated Coal Company.  Consequently,
CONSOL declined to accelerate the awarded but unvested RSUs and
declared that the unvested RSUs were forfeited.

On July 27, 2015, the circuit court entered an order granting
summary judgment for the plaintiffs.  The circuit court concluded
that CONSOL breached its contractual obligation to fully vest the
plaintiffs' RSUs.  Emphasizing that the introductory paragraph of
the Award Agreement states that CONSOL "(including its
subsidiaries, the 'Company') hereby awards you restricted stock
units under the Plan," the circuit court determined that the
plaintiffs' direct employers experienced a "change in control" as
a result of the December 5, 2013, sale.  Moreover, the circuit
court determined that, although the Equity Incentive Plan defined
"Company" to mean "CONSOL Energy, Inc.," there was nothing in that
definition that would exclude the plaintiffs' direct employers in
relation to the "change in control" and accelerated vesting
provisions of the Award Agreement.  Consequently, the circuit
court ruled that CONSOL owes each plaintiff all RSUs awarded prior
to December 5, 2013.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia also held
that the phrase "change in control" under CONSOL's Equity
Incentive Plan and Award Agreement necessarily included CONSOL's
subsidiary, Consolidated Coal Company and that the December 5,
2015, sale of Consolidated Coal Company and related assets to
Murray Energy Corporation triggered the accelerated vesting of the
plaintiffs' RSUs.  The appellate court thus ruled that
consequently, CONSOL's failure to accelerate the RSUs and its
declaration that the RSUs were forfeited constituted a breach of
contract.  Accordingly, the July 27, 2015, order of the Circuit
Court of Marshall County granting summary judgment for the
plaintiffs was affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 26, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/fUdYMS from Leagle.com.

Charles F. Johns, Esq. -- charles.johns@steptoe-johnson.com --
Christopher A. Lauderman, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson PLLC,
Bridgeport, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Robert P. Fitzsimmons, Esq., Clayton J. Fitzsimmons, Esq.,
Fitzsimmons Law Firm PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Joseph J.
John, Esq., Anthony I. Werner, Esq., John & Werner Law Offices,
PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for the Respondents.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Appeal of Settlement Approval Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company expects a class action settlement to proceed as previously
agreed after an appeal was denied.

The Company said, "We are routinely involved in various legal
proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and
practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do
initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable
to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege
that resolution as a class action is appropriate."

"We are currently subject to one such class action, which has been
settled by agreement with the plaintiffs. The settlement remains
subject to final court approval. The court has approved the
settlement, but an objecting member of the settlement class took
an appeal of that approval. The appeal was denied on October 18,
2016, and we expect the settlement to proceed as previously
agreed."

The Company specializes in purchasing and servicing retail
automobile installment sale contracts originated by licensed motor
vehicle dealers located throughout the United States in the sale
of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans.  The
Company provides indirect financing to dealer customers for
borrowers with limited credit histories or past credit problems.


EI DU PONT: Chance Moves to Certify Non-Exempt Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene R. Chance moves the Court to certify the collective action
styled GENE R. CHANCE v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., Case No.
1:16-cv-00376-MAC (E.D. Tex.), pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and to approve a proposed notification
to all putative collective action members.

The Plaintiff and putative class members consist of current and
former hourly or "Salaried Non-Exempt" employees of Defendant, who
received one or more of the following types of compensation:

   (a) Scheduled Overtime Allowance (SOA);
   (b) Scheduled Shift Premiums (SSP); and
   (c) Scheduled overtime/Sunday "premium payments."

If certification is granted, the Plaintiff asks the Court to
direct the Defendants to produce the names and addresses of all
potential collective action members for notice purposes.  The
Plaintiff also asks that the notice advise employees of the
prohibition against the Defendants retaliating against or coercing
potential collective action members as to the decision of whether
to join into the matter.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, LLP
          801 Laurel Street
          P.O. Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com


EXXONMOBIL: Faces "Ramirez" Shareholder Suit in Dallas
------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a federal class action in Dallas, November 7, stockholders
claimed that ExxonMobil "erased billions of dollars" in stock
value by misrepresenting the accounting of its oil and gas
reserves, by failing to disclose that threats of global warming
might leave many of the reserves stranded.

Lead plaintiff Pedro Ramirez Jr. says the Irving-based oil giant
violated the Securities Exchange Act and SEC rules. He claims that
during the proposed class period of Feb. 19 to Oct. 27, ExxonMobil
"repeatedly highlighted the strength of its business model and its
transparency and reporting integrity" of its oil and gas reserves
and their value.

"Exxon's public statements were materially false and misleading
when made as they failed to disclose that Exxon's own internally
generated reports concerning climate change recognized the
environmental risks caused by global warming and climate change,"
the 26-page complaint states.

"That, given the risks associated with global warming and climate
change, the company would not be able to extract the existing
hydrocarbon reserves Exxon claimed to have and, therefore, a
material portion of Exxon's reserves were stranded and should have
been written down."

Represented by four law firms in three states, Ramirez claims
ExxonMobil also used an inaccurate "price of carbon" -- the cost
of carbon tax or cap-and-trade regulations -- to overstate the
value of its reserves.

He claims the stock price dropped by more than 13 percent when
several news sources reported this summer that several state
attorneys general were investigating ExxonMobil, "erasing billions
of dollars in market capitalization."

He claims that billions more in stock value was lost when
ExxonMobil released its quarterly financial results on Oct. 28 and
acknowledged that it might have to write down 20 percent of its
oil and gas assets that were not profitable to produce under
current prices.

Lead counsel is Joe Kendall in Dallas.

ExxonMobil spokesman Alan T. Jeffers told Courthouse News the
lawsuit is "frivolous" and "completely without merit."

"We will defend ourselves and are confident our financial
reporting and communications with investors fully comply with all
legal and accounting requirements," Jeffers said on November 8.

"This lawsuit misstates our financial reporting and repeats the
same tired allegations pushed by activists and inaccurate media
reports that claim we reached definitive conclusions about climate
change decades before the world's experts and while climate
science was in an early stage of development. This is simply not
credible."

The lawsuit comes several months after Massachusetts and U.S.
Virgin Islands authorities launched separate investigations into
ExxonMobil's knowledge of climate change and global warming.

ExxonMobil sued U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Walker in
Tarrant County Court in April to block his subpoena for several
decades worth of documents, calling it an unconstitutional fishing
expedition. Walker agreed to drop the subpoena in June.

ExxonMobil sued Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in
Fort Worth Federal Court in June, seeking to block a similar
subpoena. The trial judge ruled in October that Healey must show
there is no political bias in her request.

The investigations came after several attorneys general appeared
together publicly to announce investigations into whether
ExxonMobil broke the law by misrepresenting its knowledge of
climate change in marketing materials and investor communications.

ExxonMobil called Healey's request "a weak pretext for an unlawful
exercise of government power to further political objectives," and
said the applicable law in the investigation has a statute of
limitations of four years.

Ramirez seeks class certification, compensatory damages and costs
of suit.  His co-counsel includes Balon Bradley in Dallas; Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Calif., and Melville, N.Y.' and
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky in New York City.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Mobley" Class Suit Over Advertising Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse Nwews Service, reported
that Facebook users claim in a new class action in San Jose, the
social network enables discrimination by letting advertisers block
users who are black or immigrants from seeing ads for jobs and
housing.

Lead plaintiff Suzanne-Juliette Mobley, a black New Orleans
resident, sued the social network in federal court on November 3,
less than a week after ProPublica published an investigation on
Facebook's advertising practices.  The lawsuit also names up to
9,999 doe defendants as advertisers who allegedly used Facebook's
platform to discriminate based on race, gender, national origin
and other protected attributes.

The plaintiffs claim allowing advertisers to block users from
seeing ads based on their "affinity groups," which extrapolate
ethnicity, family status and other traits from a user's Facebook
activity, violates the Fair Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, which forbids hiring discrimination based on sex,
race, religion or national origin.

The Fair Housing Act states it is unlawful to "cause to be made,
printed or published any notice, statement or advertisement with
respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a
preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."

In 2014, the Justice Department raised fines for Fair Housing Act
violations from $55,000 to $75,000 for a first offense and
increased the maximum for subsequent offenses to $150,000.

Facebook's advertising platform gives advertisers the power to
target users that recently expressed interest in or liked pages
relating to things like "buying a house" or "job hunting."

However, the platform also lets advertisers exclude certain groups
from seeing ads, including users assigned the affinity groups of
African American, Asian American, and Hispanic. Other affinity
groups that can be excluded include Christians, Muslims, divorced,
parents, moms and expats, or immigrants, according to the lawsuit.

"There is no option in Facebook's platform to exclude the
'demographic' of White or Caucasian Americans from the target
audience," the 14-page lawsuit states.

Civil rights lawyer John Relman told ProPublica that Facebook's
advertising practices were "about as blatant a violation of the
federal Fair Housing Act as one can find."

A Facebook representative disagreed. "The lawsuit is utterly
without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously," the
representative said in an email. "Multicultural marketing is a
common practice in the ad industry and helps brands reach
audiences with more relevant advertising. Our policies prohibit
using our targeting options to discriminate, and they require
compliance with the law."

The company's privacy and public policy manager, Steve
Satterfield, also told ProPublica that its policies prohibit using
targeting options to discriminate and that Facebook takes "a
strong stand" against advertisers that misuse its platform.

Excluding certain groups from seeing ads is not about
discrimination, Satterfield said, but rather is used to measure
the success of marketing campaigns among different target
audiences -- such as ads running in English versus ads in Spanish.

The social network's "affinity groups" are not the same as race,
Satterfield argued. Facebook does not ask members about race, but
rather categorizes users in groups based on their user activity.

Still, Mobley and two other named plaintiffs claim they were
blocked from seeing ads during times when they were searching for
housing and jobs because of their race and other protected
attributes.  The lawsuit claims the number of people affected by
Facebook's alleged discriminatory conduct could be in the tens of
millions or more.  The plaintiffs seek class certification,
judgment against Facebook, an injunction barring continuing
discriminatory advertising, statutory damages and civil penalties.

Mobley and two other named plaintiffs -- Karen Savage and Vitor
Onuoha -- are represented by William Most of New Orleans and Jason
Flanders -- jrf@atalawgroup.com -- of Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group
in Albany, California.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Douglass" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles J. Siragusa denied the defendant's application for
summary judgment in the case captioned CECELIA DOUGLASS,
Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, Defendant, No. 16-CV-6487
(W.D.N.Y.).

On July 14, 2016, Cecelia Douglass filed what she entitled as a
class action complaint against Forster & Garbus, LLP, a debt
collection business.  Douglass owes a past consumer debt as
defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  In her
complaint, Douglass made one claim for relief: Forster violated 15
U.S.C. section 1692e by failing to disclose that Douglass' debt
could increase due to the addition of interest and fees.

Douglass argued that Forster's collection letter, mailed to her on
or about June 22, 2016, indicated a balance due as of June 22,
2016, of $8,586.13.  Douglass also stated that in response to
receiving the letter from Forster, she telephoned Forster's
offices about July 5, 2016, and was told her balance was
$8,643.00.  She claimed she did not know that Forster or the
creditor had been continually adding interest to her account.

Forster argued that Douglass' receipt of a judgment income
execution and 42 wage garnishments, made her well aware that her
debt could increase due to interest and costs.

Citing the case captioned Avila v. Riexinger & Assoc., LLC,817
F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2016), in which the Second Circuit held that
the sending of a collection notice that states a consumer's
'current balance,' but does not disclose that the balance may
increase due to interest and fees, is a 'false, misleading, or
deceptive' practice prohibited by Section 1692e, Judge Siragusa
held that Forster's failure to indicate in its letter that
interest and fees would continue accruing beyond the date of the
letter constituted a false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of a
debt.

A full-text copy of Judge Siragusa's October 26, 2016 decision and
order is available at https://is.gd/TxQGXa from Leagle.com.

Cecilia Douglass is represented by:

          Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET
          3421 N Causeway Boulevard, Suite 805
          Metairie LA 70002
          Tel: (504)836-2888
          Fax: (504)265-9492

Forster & Garbus, LLP is represented by:

          Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
          380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Tel: (917)677-9051


GAS NATURAL: Shareholders File Class Suit Over FR Bison Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON D. "SUNNY" MASTERS, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of GAS NATURAL, 608 Birchwood
Drive, Willoughby, OH 44094, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL B. BENDER,
JAMES P. CARNEY, RICHARD K. GREAVES, ROBERT B. JOHNSTON, GREGORY
J. OSBORNE, MICHAEL R. WINTER, KEVIN J. DEGENSTEIN, JENNIFER
HABERMAN, JAMES E. SPRAGUE, c/o Gas Natural, Inc. 1375 East Ninth
Street Suite 3100 Cleveland, OH 44114 JED D. HENTHORNE, c/o Energy
West Montana, Inc. 1 1st Avenue South Great Falls, MT 59401
VINCENT A. PARISI, c/o Nisource Inc. 801 East 86th Avenue
Merrillville, IN 46410 FR BISON HOLDINGS, INC., c/o Corporation
Service Company Statutory Agent 2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19808 FR BISON MERGER SUB, INC., c/o CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Statutory Agent 50 West Broad Street, Suite
1800 Columbus, OH 43215 FIRST RESERVE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND
II, L.P., One Lafayette Place Greenwich, CT 06830 ANITA G. ZUCKER
(Individually), 4838 Jenkins Avenue North Charleston, SC 29405
ANITA G. ZUCKER (Trustee of the Article 6 Marital Trust Under the
First Amended and Restated Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust Dated
April 2, 2007), 4838 Jenkins Avenue North Charleston, SC 29405
THE INTERTECH GROUP, INC., c/o Michael Bender Statutory Agent 4838
Jenkins Avenue North Charleston, SC 29405 NIL FUNDING CORPORATION,
c/o Corporation Service Company Statutory Agent 2711 Centerville
Rd., Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808 Defendants, GAS NATURAL, INC.,
c/o 1600 CNB Corp. Statutory Agent 1375 East Ninth Street, 29th
Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Nominal Defendant, Case No. CV 16 871400
(Court Of Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 3, 2016),
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the Directors, the Officers
of Gas Natural, Inc. in connection with the proposed merger of the
Company with and into FR Bison Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FR Bison Holdings.

Gas Natural, Inc. is a holding company, distributes and sells
natural gas to end-use residential, commercial and industrial
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Q. Lewis, Esq.
     Seth J. Linnick, Esq.
     Christina E. Marino, Esq.
     Casey L. Holzapfel, Esq.
     TUCKER ELLIS LLP
     950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
     Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
     Phone: 216.592.5000
     Fax: 216.592.5009
     E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
             seth.linnick@tuckerellis.com
             christina.marino@tuckerellis.com
             casey.holzapfel@tuckerellis.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Faverman" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Faverman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Genworth Financial, Inc.,
William H. Bolinder, G. Kent Conrad, Melina E. Higgins, Thomas J.
McInerney, David M. Moffett, Thomas E. Moloney, James A. Parke,
James S. Riepe, Asia Pacific Global Capital Co., Ltd. and Asia
Pacific Global Capital USA Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00883, (E.D. Va. November 2, 2016), seeks class action status
to either block the company's pending $2.7 billion deal to be
acquired by China Oceanwide Holdings Group Co., Ltd. or win
damages should the transaction be completed.

Genworth and China Oceanwide jointly announced that will acquire
the common stock of Genworth for $5.43 per share in cash. Upon
consummation, Genworth will be a standalone subsidiary of China
Oceanwide and Genworth's senior management team will continue to
lead the business from its current headquarters in Richmond,
Virginia. Plaintiff is an owner of Genworth common stock and
alleges that the merger constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to lock up the merger with deal protection devices that
preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer
due to a strict no-solicitation provision that prevents the
Company from soliciting other potential acquirers or from
continuing discussions and negotiations with potential acquirers,
an information rights provision that grants Asia Pacific access to
any rival bids and a provision that requires Genworth to pay Asia
Pacific a termination fee of $105 million following termination of
the merger agreement.

William H. Bolinder, G. Kent Conrad, Melina E. Higgins, Thomas J.
Mcinerney, David M. Moffett, Thomas E. Moloney, James A. Parke,
James S. Riepe serve in the Board of Genworth.

Genworth is a Fortune 500 insurance holding company committed to
helping families achieve the dream of homeownership and address
the financial challenges of aging through its leadership positions
in mortgage insurance and long term care insurance.

Asia Pacific is a liability company incorporated in the People's
Republic of China, owned by China Oceanwide, who has additionally
committed to contribute to Genworth $600 million of cash to
address the debt maturing in 2018.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Robert O. Wilson, Esq.
      L. Kendall Satterfield, Esq.
      Rosalee B.C. Thomas, Esq.
      1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 337-8000
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      Email: rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com
             ksatterfield@finkelsteinthompson.com
             rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com

             - and -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN - A Professional Corporation
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
      Email: kerr@browerpiven.com


GOHEALTH LLC: Rafano Seeks to Certify Four Classes of Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case entitled DEBRA RAFANO individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. GOHEALTH, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-10272 (N.D. Ill.), is a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
but asks the Court to enter and continue the motion until after
the completion of discovery on class-wide issues, at which time
she will submit a more detailed memorandum of points and
authorities in support of class certification.

Ms. Rafano asserts that she files the Motion at the outset of
litigation to prevent the Defendant from attempting a so-called
"buy off" to moot her representative claims, citing Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).  She contends
that the matter readily satisfies the prerequisites to class
certification because, among other things, GoHealth not only
invaded the class members' personal privacy, it repeatedly
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute
enacted specifically to protect consumers from unsolicited
telephone calls like those alleged in the case.  She seeks
certification of four Classes of similarly situated individuals,
defined as:

     (1) Pre-recorded No Consent Class:

     All persons in the United States who (1) GoHealth (or a
     third person acting on behalf of  GoHealth) called, (2) on
     the person's cellular telephone, (3) for the purpose of
     selling Defendant's products and services, (4) using a
     pre-recorded voice, and (5) for whom Defendant claims it
     obtained prior express consent in the same manner as
     Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express
     consent to call the Plaintiff.

     (2) Pre-recorded Stop Class:

     All persons in the United States who (1) GoHealth (or a
     third person acting on behalf of GoHealth) called, (2) on
     the person's cellular telephone, (3) for the purpose of
     selling Defendant's products and services, (4) using a
     pre-recorded voice, (4) after the person informed GoHealth
     that s/he no longer wished to receive calls from GoHealth.

     (3) Do Not Call Registry Class:

     All persons in the United States who (1) GoHealth (or a
     third person acting on behalf of GoHealth) called more than
     one time on his/her cellular telephone; (2) within any
     12-month period (3) where the cellular telephone number had
     been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
     least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling
     Defendant's products and services; and (5) for whom
     Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the
     same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express
     consent to call the Plaintiff.

     (4) Do Not Call Registry Stop Class:

     All individuals in the United States (1) who had his/her
     telephone number(s) registered with the National Do Not Call
     Registry for at least thirty days; (2) who received more
     than one telephone call made by or on behalf of GoHealth
     within a 12-month period; (3) who requested that Defendant
     not call them again; and (4) who received another call from
     Defendant after the person informed GoHealth that s/he no
     longer wished to receive calls from GoHealth at least 30
     days after requesting to no longer be called.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ehdfXI94

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


HEALTH CARE SERVICE: "Briscoe" Sues Over Lactation Benefit Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Briscoe and Kristin Magierski, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Health Care Service
Corporation and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Of Illinois,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24556 (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2016),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and
appropriate, damages, accounting, equitable surcharge and
disgorgement of profits, equitable lien, constructive trust or
other remedy, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, expert witness
fees and other costs pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Health Care Service Corporation is an Illinois Mutual Legal
Reserve Company and independent licensee of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association with its headquarters located at 300 East
Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois. Defendants have allegedly
prevented women from getting the guaranteed access to timely
Comprehensive Lactation Benefits by circumventing health plans
that provide no cost of preventive services, failing to establish
a network of lactation consultants, improperly attributing an out-
of-network characterization to Comprehensive Lactation Benefits in
response to insureds' inquiries, imposing major administrative
barriers seeking to receive information about and access to
Comprehensive Lactation Benefits and failing to construct a list
of in-network providers of Comprehensive Lactation Benefits.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
      BLAU & MALMFELDT
      203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1620
      Chicago, IL 60601-1218
      Tel: (312) 443-1600
      Fax: (312) 443-1665
      Email: pmalmfeldt@blau-malmfeldt.com

             - and -

      Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
      Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Email: NEC@Chimicles.com
             KMD@Chimicles.com
             SES@Chimicles.com


HERCULES FORWARDING: "Happel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Happel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hercules Forwarding, Inc., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-10 Defendant, Case No. BC 639
636 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, November 3, 2016), was
brought for the Defendants' (1) failure to pay its current and
former truck drivers in California separately and on an hourly
basis for their time spent taking their statutory rest periods and
on their pre- and post-trip inspections, loading/unloading time,
time spent cleaning their trucks, time spent fueling their trucks
and on time spent on work-related paperwork; (2) failure to
provide paid rest breaks to its current and former drivers; (3)
failure to pay all wages due to former employees based on the
foregoing; and (4) unfair business practices based on the
foregoing.

Defendant is a California company that maintains its trucking
terminal in California, from where it does business by
transporting general freight, and other intermodal commodities,
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
     ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Phone: (310) 277-0614
     Fax: (310) 277-0635
     E-mail: cia@ackermanntilaief.com

        - and -

     Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
     MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Phone: (310) 824-3828
     Fax: (310) 862-6851
     E-mail: im@melmedlaw.com


IMAAN INTERNATIONAL: "Lopez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Kensy Isamari Guardado Lopez and Dinora Elizabeth Villeda,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Imaan International, Inc. and Shah Hamdani,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03585 (D. Md., October 31, 2016),
seeks minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Defendants employed Plaintiffs at their service station located at
3101 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224, where they performed
manual labor, including cooking, preparing food, and cleaning both
inside the restaurant and the area surrounding the gasoline
service pumps, often working between nine to ten hours per day or
54 hours to 60 hours per workweek. They claim to be denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Phone: (202) 803-6083
      Fax: (202) 683-6102
      Email: justin@dcwagelaw.com


INFINITY DESIGN: "Fuentes" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
OFELIA FUENTES, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY DESIGN 2 INC and RONEL CONSTANSI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24619-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 4,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

INFINITY DESIGN 2 INC is a domestic for profit business
incorporated in Florida, USA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esquire
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


INTEGRATED PAIN: Insurers' Duty to Defend Not Triggered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned REGENT INSURANCE CO. and GENERAL CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. INTEGRATED PAIN MANAGEMENT, S.C.
and MICHAEL C. ZIMMER, D.C., P.C., Defendants, No. 4:14-CV-1759
RLW (E.D. Mo.), Judge Ronnie L. White granted the motion for
summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs Regent Insurance Company
and General Casualty Insurance Company.

Dr. Tian Xia, d/b/a Integrated Pain Management (IPM) is a
defendant in a class action lawsuit, Michael C. Zimmer, D.C.,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Integrated Pain Management, SC., 4:14-cv-1121 (the "Underlying
Lawsuit").  Subsequently, the suit was amended to add Dr. Tian
Zia, individually, and the entities Tian Medical, Inc. and Tian
Medical, LLC as party defendants.  In the Underlying Lawsuit,
Zimmer sought damages from IPM for IPM sending unsolicited
telefaxes, allegedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and common law conversion (the "Underlying
Complaint").

On October 17, 2014, Regent Insurance Company and General Casualty
Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a
declaration that they have no duty to defend or indemnify IPM
against the Underlying Lawsuit.  Regent insured IPM under a policy
providing Commercial General Liability Coverage for the period
from November 18, 2010 to November 18, 2011.  General Casualty
insured IPM under a policy providing Commercial Umbrella Coverage
for the same coverage period.

The Insurers claimed that the allegations in the Underlying
Lawsuit do not fall within the policies' coverage period.  The
Underlying Lawsuit alleged that IPM sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements on or about July 11, 2012, and September 24, 2012.
The Insurers claim that because the faxes were sent outside the
applicable policy period, their policies afford no coverage for
any alleged damages resulting from those faxes, or any other faxes
sent outside of the policies' coverage period.

Michael C. Zimmer D.C., P.C. contended that the Underlying
Complaint implicated the policy coverage period.  Zimmer stated
that, although the Underlying Complaint references only two
specific instances of unwanted faxes -- both in 2012 -- the
Underlying Complaint makes clear that Count I seeks certification
of a class encompassing four years prior to the filing of the
Underlying Lawsuit and Count II seeks certification of a class
encompassing five years prior to the filing of the Underlying
Lawsuit.  Zimmer claimed that these allegations include the
coverage period for the Insurers' policy.

Judge White held that the allegations in the Underlying Complaint
are sufficient to fall within the relevant time period covered
under the Insurers' policies.  The judge explained that although
the only specific facsimiles identified in the Underlying
Complaint fall outside the policy period, the class allegations in
the Underlying Complaint are broader than those two instances.

The Insurers also asserted that the policies contain a TCPA
exclusion which bars coverage for the Underlying Lawsuit,
regardless of when the alleged actions occurred.  Both policies
contained TCPA endorsements that expressly bar coverage for
damages for "bodily injury," "property damage," or "personal and
advertising injury" "arising directly or indirectly out of any
action or omission that violates or is allege to violate" the
TCPA.  The Insurers claimed that Count I of the Underlying Lawsuit
alleges a direct violation of the TCPA and Count II of the
Underlying Lawsuit alleges a claim for conversion that arises from
the same acts that are alleged to violate the TCPA.  Therefore,
the Insurers claimed that the policies' TCPA exclusions bar
coverage from the Underlying Lawsuit, regardless of whether the
relevant faxes were sent within the policies' coverage period.
The Insurers also claimed that the Underlying Lawsuit contains no
claims that arise from the sending of faxes that are not alleged
to violate the TCPA.

In response, Zimmer argued that the policy exclusions should be
construed narrowly and do not bar the underlying conversion claim.
Zimmer maintained that the conversion claim does not "arise out
of" any TCPA violation.

According to Judge White, the Illinois Supreme Court would hold
that the application of the TCPA exclusion would exclude all of
the claims in the Underlying Lawsuit.  The judge thus concluded
that the Insurers' duty to defend has not been triggered by the
allegations in the Underlying Complaint, which merely restated the
TCPA claims.

A full-text copy of Judge White's October 27, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/NTJ73A from Leagle.com.

Integrated Pain Management, S.C., Dr. Tian Xia, Defendants, Tian
Medical, LLC, Tian Medical Inc., Consolidated Filer Defendants,
represented by Bernard A. Henry -- bhenry@rieckcrotty.com -- RIECK
AND CROTTY PC.

Michael C. Zimmer, D.C., P.C.,, Defendant, represented by Max G.
Margulis, MARGULIS LAW GROUP & Jeffrey A. Berman --
jberman@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA.

Allstate Insurance Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP & Elizabeth T. Ferrick,
DENTONS US LLP.


INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that an appeal by
plaintiffs in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation remains
pending.

The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had
agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee)
for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08."

"In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class
action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the
class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January
2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench
trial.

"In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which
the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court
granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment
in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel,
McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to
plaintiff's appeal in December 2014.

"Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims
and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement Deal in "Krimes" Suit Has Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSE KRIMES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-5087 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted Jesse Krimes' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, overruled Brett
Sheib's objections and denied his motion for leave to take
discovery.

Krimes, who was released from federal prison in September of 2013,
initiated the action on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated on September 11, 2015 against the defendants JPMorgan
Chase Bank ("Chase") and Does 1-10, alleging unjust enrichment,
conversion, and violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The action involves the allegedly abusive practices Chase used in
connection with debit cards issued to released prisoners.
According to Krimes, if he and the other releasees "want[ed] their
own money after they [were] released from prison, they [were]
forced to accept a 'consumer relationship' with Chase" and "accept
the Chase U.S. Debit Card's terms."  Krimes also contended that
Chase charged excessive fees for using the card.

On August 1, 2016, Krimes filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The settlement agreement defined the settlement class as follows:
"All persons in the United States who, up to and including the
date of preliminary approval, were issued BOP Debit Cards upon
their release from federal correctional facilities as part of the
U.S. Debit Card program operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for
the United States Treasury Department and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons."

The settlement agreement provided that Chase will pay up to
$446,822 to the settlement class.  From this amount, each class
member will be entitled to reimbursement of all fees imposed by
Chase as well as all third-party ATM surcharges that were incurred
on BOP debit cards before the date of preliminary approval.

On August 9, 2016, Brett Sheib a potential class member and
plaintiff in his own similar suit that he filed on June 6, 2016 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, filed his "Class Member Objection to Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Leave to Take
Discovery Regarding Class Action Settlement."

Sheib alleged that the complaint in Krimes exclusively challenges
fees charged by Chase for using the debit cards while his
complaint focuses on Chase's alleged overarching scheme to issue
cards and disincentivize their use so that unused funds would be
"forfeited" to Chase.  Sheib asserted that those "forfeited"
amounts substantially exceed any fees that Chase collected on the
debit cards.

Sheib sought a denial of the motion for preliminary approval until
the Krimes parties exclude the "forfeited" funds claim at issue in
Sheib.  Alternatively, he moved to pursue discovery, prior to
preliminary approval, to determine the balance of funds in each
class members' debit card account.

Judge Robreno found that the settlement class preliminarily
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a) and (b)(3),
as well as the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement.
Therefore, the judge held that preliminarily certification of the
class is proper.  Judge Robreno also found that the settlement
agreement appears proper under Rule 23(e)(2), and that the notice
program used in the case satisfies Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and (e).

Judge Robreno overruled Sheib's objections and denied his motion
for discovery.  The judge found that the claims released in the
settlement agreement all "arise from the same nucleus of operative
facts" such that they rightly belong in the same agreement.  The
judge determined that the settlement agreement also adequately
addresses the issue of the "forfeited" funds since the class
members may request a check for the full balance on their BOP
debit cards.  Despite Sheib's objections, Judge Robreno found it
difficult to fathom how a settlement that reimburses the class
members for all fees paid as well as provides for disgorgement of
all funds remaining in their debit card accounts is not fair to
the class members.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's October 26, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/IUqXJc from Leagle.com.

JESSE KRIMES, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. STANOCH --
dstanoch@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C..

JESSE KRIMES, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD
FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC, JEFFREY D. KALIEL --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, pro hac vice, KENNETH
J. GRUNFELD -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK PC.,
RICHARD M. GOLOMB -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK &
RUBEN HONIK -- rhonik@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, PC.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, represented by JAMIE S.
DYCUS -- jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP, pro hac vice, NOAH A. LEVINE --
noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
LLP, pro hac vice & PATRICK T. RYAN -- pryan@mmwr.com --
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP.


LA CHECKER CAB: Fails to Protect Cardholders, "Noble" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT NOBLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. L.A. CHECKER CAB COMPANY, INC., formerly known as L.A.
Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. (d/b/a L. A. Checker Cab), and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC639192 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., October 31, 2016), alleges that although they had
years to comply, the Defendants have willfully violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and failed to protect the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity theft and
credit and debit card fraud by printing more than the last five
digits of the card number on receipts provided to credit card and
debit card cardholders transacting business with the Defendants.

L.A. Checker Cab Company, Inc., formerly known as L.A. Checker Cab
Cooperative, Inc. (d/b/a L. A. Checker Cab), is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the California.  The
Company owns, manages, maintains and or operates taxi cabs within
California, through which it offers various goods and services for
sale to retail customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


LE BILBOQUET NY: Accused by "Alonso" Class Suit of Violating FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO ALONSO on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. LE BILBOQUET NY, LLC, d/b/a LE BILBOQUET, and PHILIPPE
DELGRANGE, Case No. 1:16-cv-08448 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2016), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all
service employees, other than service managers, employed by Le
Bilboquet on or after the date that is three years before the
filing of the original complaint.

Le Bilboquet NY, LLC is a New York corporation that operates Le
Bilboquet restaurant located in New York City.  Le Bilboquet is
owned and operated by Philippe Delgrange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
                  jnussbaum@jhllp.com


MARATHON OIL: Faces "Baucum" Lawsuit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHANCE BAUCUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MARATHON OIL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03278 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION is a global oil and gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the United
States, including in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


MAX'S CAR: Faces "Whyte" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK VERNAL WHYTE, Plaintiff, vs. MAX'S CAR WASH LLC
Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62611-JIC (S.D. Fla., November 3,
2016), seeks to recover on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests,
costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of
minimum wages and overtime pay under the laws of the United
States, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MAX'S CAR WASH LLC provides car wash and detailing services in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (786) 704 - 8898
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


MCCLOUD GROUP: "Taylor" Suit Alleges Violation of NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE TAYLOR individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by THE MCCLOUD GROUP, L.L.C.,
ROBERT MCCLOUD, and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by THE MCCLOUD GROUP, L.L.C., and/or ROBERT MCCLOUD
Plaintiffs, v. THE MCCLOUD GROUP, L.L.C., ROBERT MCCLOUD, and/or
any other entities affiliated with or controlled by THE MCCLOUD
GROUP, L.L.C. and/or ROBERT MCCLOUD, Defendants, INDEX NO.
159277/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, November 3, 2016),
alleges that the defendants failed to pay plaintiffs overtime
compensation equal to one-and-one half times the regular rate of
pay when plaintiffs worked over 40 hours in a given week in
violation of New York Labor Law.

The defendants perform construction and/or other work, such as
construction manager, laborer, etc., on various construction
projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Henry C. Chan, Esq.
     JORGE TAYLOR
     WILSON & CHAN, LLP
     733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (646) 790-5848
     E-mail: hchan@wilsonchanlaw.com


MDL 2262: Citigroup Seeks Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in IN RE LIBOR-
BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Citibank and
Citigroup along with the other defendants on July 6, 2016, moved
to dismiss all antitrust claims based on the efficient enforcer
doctrine. Additional information concerning these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD
2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).


MDL 2555: Discovery Requests in Marketing Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maria-Elena James granted in part and denied, in part, the
parties' discovery requests in the case captioned IN RE: COCA-COLA
PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II), Case
No. 14-md-02555-JSW (MEJ) (N.D. Cal.).

The Multi-District Litigation consists of several class actions in
which the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, The Coca-Cola
Company, Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., BCI Coco-Cola Bottling
Company of Los Angeles, and Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Sonora,
California: (1) failed to identify phosphoric acid, a labeled
ingredient in Coca-Cola (or "Coke"), as an artificial flavor and a
chemical preservative; and (2) issued packages and labels
containing allegedly misleading statements and omissions,
including: (a) Coke's ingredient list not identifying phosphoric
acid as an artificial flavor or chemical preservative; (b) a Coke
label statement: "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added.
since 1886" (the "Pemberton Claim"2); and (c) a Coke label
statement: "original formula" (the "OF Claim").

On July 10, 2015, the Court ordered discovery proceed in phases,
limiting Phase II to class certification issues.  The parties
filed three Joint Discovery Letters.

As an initial matter, Judge James noted that the defendants repeat
the same two arguments in all three discovery letters: (1) the
plaintiffs' requests to compel are untimely because they seek
compliance after the discovery cut-off date; and (2) the
plaintiffs' requests go to merits discovery, not class
certification discovery and therefore fall outside the scope of
Phase II discovery.

Judge James did not find much merit with regard to the first
argument.  The judge stated that while the Phase II discovery cut-
off date was September 23, 2016, the parties expressly stipulated
to extend the deadline to file an application to compel this
discovery until October 14, 2016, and the presiding judge entered
their stipulation into an Order on September 16, 2016.

As to the second argument, Judge James held that the line between
merits and class certification discovery is not always bright, and
accordingly, considered the parties' merits versus class
certification arguments on a dispute-by-dispute basis as follows:

     (a) Letter at Dkt. No. 134 ("FDA Compliance Letter")

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to produce (1) "all
communications" with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and other governmental entities concerning the lawfulness of
Coke's labeling and the classification of phosphoric acid under
federal or state laws and regulations, and (2) "all documents"
concerning whether the disputed aspects of Coke's labeling
complied with federal or state laws and regulations.

Judge James held that this information is properly discoverable at
the class certification discovery phase.  The judge stated that if
Coke possesses communications with the FDA or other governmental
entities warning Coke its representations were misleading, this
evidence may be useful common proof to determine what consumers
were likely to understand.  The judge also stated that similarly,
nonprivileged documents concerning whether the defendants'
advertising and labeling on their products complied with state and
federal laws and regulations could be persuasive evidence
supporting commonality and predominance.

Judge James, however, found RFP Nos 1(g) and 1(s) somewhat
overbroad, as these requests appeared to go beyond the allegations
in the complaint.

     (b) Letter at Dkt. No. 135 ("Communications Letter")

The plaintiffs sought (1) communications with marketing,
advertising, or promoting consultants, agencies, experts, or
professionals retained by Coca-Cola regarding (a) the Pemberton
and OF Claims, (b) the disclosure or non-disclosure of any
artificial flavoring's or preservatives' presence in Coke, and (c)
consumers' perception of Coke's healthiness; and (2) documents
concerning consumer views' of Coke's healthiness and ingredients
and the impact of the various claims and omissions at issue on
consumers, which would include any internal and external
communications and any internal or third-party reports, memoranda,
or other documents regarding those topics.

Judge James agreed with the defendants that many of those requests
are broad and would impose a burden not "proportional to the needs
of the case."  But rather than that information, the judge found
that the plaintiffs appeared to seek discovery about how the
defendants perceived their own representations, how they intended
consumers to perceive those representations, and how they
understood customers to perceive those representations.  Judge
James held that such inquiries are relevant because the plaintiffs
could use such evidence as common proof that the defendants chose
to advertise in a certain way to impact its consumers' choice.

However, Judge James expressed concerned that some of the requests
could result in retrieval of information which the plaintiffs do
not need and likely do not want, wasting the defendants' time and
resources as well.

     (c) Letter at Dkt. No. 136 ("Marketing and
         Sales Data Letter")

The third letter involves a dispute over the plaintiffs' discovery
requests for internal reports, memoranda, studies, surveys,
research and analysis of the claims and the effects of the labels
and marketing on sales, revenues, profits, market share and
prices.

First, as to market share data, Judge James found that the
plaintiffs have not articulated how this information is relevant
to any issue at class certification, nor have they provided any
legal authority supporting their position that this information
should be discoverable.

Second, as to the effects of the disputed labeling claims on
Coke's sales, revenues, profits, and prices, Judge James noted
that the Court generally finds this information discoverable at
this stage.  The judge held that the effects of the disputed
labeling claims on sales, revenues, profits, and pricing
information is relevant to the class certification damages
inquiry.

Based on the foregoing analysis, Judge James thus granted in part,
and denied in part, the parties' discovery requests.  The judge
also ordered the parties to meet and confer to exclude any
irrelevant and unhelpful materials and lessen Defendants' burden.

A full-text copy of Judge James's October 26, 2016 discovery order
is available at https://is.gd/YlYEHP from Leagle.com.

George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F.
Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman --
bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Dewitt
Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice,
Gene M. Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, pro hac vice,
June Park -- jpark@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The Fleischman Law
Firm, Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The
Fleischman Law Firm, Robert L. Plotz & Don Barrett --
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law Group.

Julia Hughes, Ayanna Nobles, Plaintiffs, represented by Sydney Jay
Hall, Attorney at Law, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates &
Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group.

Paul Merritt, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The
Fleischman Law Firm, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, June
Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Mark L. Knutson, Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group & Mark L. Knutson,
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Bristol I. Aumiller, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Lucas Lanasa, Howard & Associates, P.A.,
Phillip Timothy Howard, Howard and Associates, P.A., Tammy Beth
Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group.

Yocheved Lazaroff, Rachel Dube, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F.
Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman, Fleischman
Law Firm, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, June Park, The
Fleischman Law Firm & Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law
Firm.

Ronald Sowizrol, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman,
The Fleischman Law Firm, Kristofer Scott Riddle, Clifford Law
Offices, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert
Anthony Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Shannon Marie
McNulty, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice.

Michelle Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Erica C. Mirabella --
erica@mirabellallc.com -- Mirabella Law, LLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Bonnie Prober, U.S. Department of Justice,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Dewitt Marshall
Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Keith M.
Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert Anthony Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
LLP.

Mary Rankin, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth R. Shemin, Shemin
Law Firm, PLLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm &
Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm, P.A..

Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by George
R. Dougherty -- gdougherty@shb.com -- Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle
Cohen -- mcohen@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman -- dfriedman@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler LLP -- ddjohnson@shb.com -- pro hac vice, David
Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang --
ichang@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson,
Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf --
jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin
A. Kasten -- mkasten@fridayfirm.com -- Friday Eldredge & Clark,
LLP, Matthew Funk -- mfunk@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec -- sezgliniec@pbwt.com
-- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy
Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson
Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

The Coca-Cola Company, Defendants, represented by George R.
Dougherty, Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James
M. Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Martin A. Kasten,
Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb
and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J.
Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by George R. Dougherty,
Grippo & Elden LLC, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon
LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M.
Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin A. Kasten, Friday
Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb
and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

BCI Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Defendant,
represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew
Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E.
Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP.

Coca Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina
Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew Funk,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E.
Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP.


MICHIGAN: Burley Can't Participate in "McBride" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Mary Ann McBride, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-11222 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox adopted Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand's "Order Denying Request for Order by 'Interested
Party.'"

Plaintiffs, and Michigan state prisoners, Mary Ann McBride, Brian
Stanley Wittman, and Ralph Williams, filed a civil rights class
action against multiple defendants, claiming that they have been
discriminated against for being deaf or significantly hearing
impaired.

On August 1, 2016, Edward Donald Burley filed a "Notice of
Interested Party," in which he advised that he is "an incarcerated
person currently under the jurisdiction of the MDOC [the Michigan
Department of Corrections], a hearing disabled prisoner without
proper accommodations for [his] disability."  Burley further
advised that he "currently [has] pending before this very [C]ourt
litigation entitled Burley v. MDOC, et al[.], Case No. 2:16-cv-
10712, Hon. Judge Steeh presiding over the action."

Burley's Notice sought two things:

     -- that the Court "officially take notice that [he] is an
        interested party in this civil litigation against the
        MDOC."

     -- that the Court issue an order "directing the clerk to
        furnish [him] the entire court file, service of any and
        all further pleadings, motions, judgments, or other forms
        of legal filings within this Court relating to the
        McBride case."

Burley sought the information because the "evidence [already]
discovered in this case may assist the Court in its judicial
economy and prompt resolution of the issues" before the Court in
Burley's case.

On August 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grand entered an "Order
Denying Request for Order by 'Interested Party.'"  Burley timely
objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order on September 6, 2016,
arguing as follows:

     -- First, Burley argued that Magistrate Judge Grand "only
        adjudicated ruling on the relief, and not the actual
        request for the court to take judicial notice that Edward
        Donald Burley is an interested party."

     -- Second, Burley took issue with Magistrate Judge Grand's
        use of the word "says" which, according to Burley,
        "call[s] into question the validity of interested party
        Burley's contentions."

     -- Third, Burley "objects to Magistrate not having the
        parties file a response to the 'Notice of Interested
        Party.'"

     -- Finally, Burley "objects to the [M]agistrate's gesture of
        foreclosing the proceedings to an interested party under
        the law."  Burley's argument here pertained to access to
        discovery from the McBride case that is relevant to
        Burley's case.

Judge Cox found Burley's objections to be without merit.  The
judge found that Magistrate Judge Grand's resolution of the issue
was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.  Judge Cox held
that Burley misapprehended the Magistrate Judge's Order and that
Burley failed to point to any specific deficiency in the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning.

As to discovery, Judge Cox noted that the Magistrate Judge offered
Burley two alternative avenues in which such discovery may be
obtained.  First, the Order advises that Burley may attempt to
seek such discovery in the civil litigation before Judge Steeh.
Second, the Order advises that Burley can attempt to seek such
discovery directly from class counsel.

Burley's objections were therefore overruled.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's October 24, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/O1WZDG from Leagle.com.

Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, Ralph Williams,
Plaintiffs, represented by Abraham Singer --
abraham.singer@kitch.com -- Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti &
Sherbrook, Andrew D. Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Megan E. Gerking -- mgerking@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Philip J. Levitz -- plevitz@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, Stephen Curtis Bartenstein -- sbartenstein@cov.com --
Covington & Burling LLP & Chris E. Davis, Michigan Protection and
Advocacy Service.

Michigan Department of Corrections, Daniel H Heyns, Thomas Finco,
Randall Treacher, Anthony Stewart, Jeffrey Woods, Cathleen
Stoddard, Defendants, represented by Allan J. Soros, Michigan
Department of Attorney General, Gary L. Grant, Michigan Attonrey
General's Office, James E. Long, Michigan Department of Attorney
General, Jeanmarie Miller, State of Michigan & Robert J. Jenkins,
Michigan Department of Attorney General.


MILLER AND STEENO: Dilallo Renews Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Dilallo files a renewed motion for class certification in
the lawsuit captioned ROBERTA DILALLO, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons v. MILLER AND STEENO, P.C., and LVNV
FUNDING LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00051 (N.D. Ill.).  The Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying this class:

     All persons from whom Miller and Steeno, P.C., attempted to
     collect a debt from, where the debt was owned by LVNV
     Funding, and LVNV Funding was not the entity identified as
     the owner of assignee of the debt, for a time period from
     January 4, 2015, to January 4, 2016.

According to Miller and Steeno, P.C.'s records, 876 persons are
included within the class definition.

Ms. Dilallo brings the putative class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act against the Defendants arising out of
Miller and Steeno's alleged attempted collection of a debt in
which Arrow Financial Services, LLC was identified to the debtor
as the creditor.  At the time Miller and Steeno attempted to
collect a debt from her, Ms. Dilallo contends that Arrow Financial
Services was no longer the owner of the debt -- the debt was owned
by Defendant LVNV.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BBCS5rFk

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY, Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com


NEW YORK: Board of Elections Sued Over Voters' Rights
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that in a federal class action
with Common Cause New York, two men claim that the NYC Board of
Elections improperly removed them from the voter rolls, depriving
them of their right to vote on November 8.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Funded $3MM of Settlement Amount in "Davida"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
has funded $3.0 million of the class action settlement amount into
escrow and the Company expects to fund the remaining balance in
the fourth quarter of 2016.

              Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC

On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff sought damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service
employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA and pay them on an hourly
basis (including overtime). On January 6, 2015, the Court granted
the plaintiff's motion to "conditionally" certify the class of
fluid service technicians that have worked for Newpark Drilling
Fluids over the past three years.

           Christiansen v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC

On November 11, 2014, Josh Christiansen (represented by the same
counsel as Davida) filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, alleging violations of the FLSA. The plaintiff sought
damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to:
properly classify him as an employee rather than an independent
contractor; properly classify its field service employees as "non-
exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an hourly basis
(including overtime) and sought damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to pay him and the others in the
proposed class on an hourly basis (including overtime). Following
the filing of this lawsuit, five additional plaintiffs joined the
proceedings. In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification. Counsel for the
plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and subsequently filed
individual cases for each of the original opt-in plaintiffs plus
two new plaintiffs, leaving a total of eight separate independent
contractor cases.

                 Additional Individual FLSA cases

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the same counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Davida and Christiansen-related cases filed two
additional individual FLSA cases on behalf of former fluid service
technician employees. These cases are similar in nature to the
Davida case.

              Resolution of Wage and Hour Litigation

The Company said, "Beginning in November 2015, we engaged in
settlement discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs in the
pending wage and hour litigation cases described above. Following
mediation in January 2016, the parties executed a settlement
agreement in April 2016 to resolve all of the pending matters,
subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Court
in the Davida case, and the dismissal of the other FLSA cases
(Christiansen-related lawsuits and individual FLSA cases)."

"The settlement agreement was approved by the Davida Court on
August 19, 2016. Approximately 569 current and former fluid
service technician employees eligible for the settlement were
notified of the pending resolution beginning on August 26, 2016
and given an opportunity to participate in the settlement.

"The amount paid to any eligible individual will vary based on a
formula that takes into account the number of workweeks and salary
for the individual during the time period covered by the
settlement (which can vary based upon several factors). Any
eligible individual that elects to participate in the settlement
will release all wage and hour claims against the Company.

"As a result of the settlement negotiations, we recognized a $5.0
million charge in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the
pending resolution of these wage and hour litigation claims. The
settlement fund is being administered by a third party who will
make payments to eligible individuals that elect to participate,
in accordance with a formula incorporated into the settlement
agreement.

"In addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, if
settlement funds remain after all payments are made to eligible
individuals that elect to participate in the settlement, such
excess amount will be shared by the participating individuals and
the Company. The amount of excess funds, if any, is not currently
determinable.

"As of September 30, 2016, we have funded $3.0 million of the
settlement amount into escrow and we expect to fund the remaining
balance in the fourth quarter of 2016, subject to the conditions
described above. The deadline for submitting claims or opting out
was October 25, 2016, and as of that date, 367 individuals have
filed claims, with no individuals opting out.

"The percentage of current or former fluid service technicians
that have elected to participate in the settlement represents
approximately 65% of the individuals receiving notice. Individuals
that did not participate in the settlement may retain the right to
file an individual lawsuit against the Company, subject to any
defenses we may assert. We expect the distributions from the
settlement escrow fund to the current and former employees to
occur in the fourth quarter of 2016, along with a determination of
the amount of excess funds, if any, that could be returned to the
Company."

Newpark is a geographically diversified oil and gas industry
supplier providing products and services primarily to the oil and
gas exploration and production ("E&P") industry.


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Class Suit v. Breg Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative
class action against former subsidiary Breg is at an early stage.

On May 24, 2012, the Company sold Breg to an affiliate of Water
Street Healthcare Partners II, L.P. ("Water Street") pursuant to a
stock purchase agreement (the "Breg SPA"). Under the terms of the
Breg SPA, upon closing of the sale, the Company and its
subsidiary, Orthofix Holdings, Inc., agreed to indemnify Water
Street and Breg with respect to certain specified matters,
including the following:

* Breg was engaged in the manufacturing and sale of local infusion
pumps for pain management from 1999 to 2008. Since 2008, numerous
product liability cases have been filed in the United States
alleging that the local anesthetic, when dispensed by such
infusion pumps inside a joint, causes a rare arthritic condition
called "chondrolysis." The Company incurred losses for settlements
and judgments in connection with these matters during the first
nine months of 2016 of $0.8 million as compared to $0.3 million in
the first nine months of 2015. In addition, several cases remain
outstanding for which the Company currently cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, or range of loss.

* At the time of its divestiture by the Company, Breg was engaged
in the manufacturing and sales of motorized cold therapy units
used to reduce pain and swelling. Several domestic product
liability cases have been filed in recent years, mostly in
California state court, alleging the use of cold therapy causes
skin and/or nerve injury and seeking damages on behalf of
individual plaintiffs who were allegedly injured by such units or
who would not have purchased the units had they known they could
be injured. In September 2014, the Company entered into a master
settlement agreement resolving all pending pre-close claims.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
paid approximately $1.3 million, and additional amounts owed under
the settlement were paid directly by the Company's insurance
providers. These amounts paid by the Company were recorded as an
expense in discontinued operations during the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2014. Remaining cold therapy claims include a putative
consumer class of individuals who did not suffer physical harm
following use of the devices, and an appeal of an adverse July
2012 California jury verdict and a post-close cold therapy claim
pending in California state court. As of September 30, 2016, the
Company has accrued $5.7 million for the July 2012 verdict and
post-close cold therapy liabilities; however, actual liability
could be higher or lower than the amount accrued. The putative
class action is at an early stage and the Company currently cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss.  On
October 28, 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling
in Engler v. Breg, Inc. et al., reversing in part and affirming in
part the judgment entered against Breg in 2012.  The Company is
evaluating the ruling.


PACIFIC DENTAL: Gutierrez Alleges Systematic Scheme of Wage Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA B. GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
BC637783 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 31, 2016),
alleges that for at least four years prior to the filing of the
complaint and through the present, the Defendants have engaged in
a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt or hourly employees of the
Defendants.

Pacific Dental Services, LLC, is organized as a Limited Liability
Company under the laws of the state of Delaware and has its main
office in Irvine, California.  The Company primarily operates in
the dental clinics and offices business/industry within the health
services sector.  The Plaintiff is unaware and ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lilit Tovmasyan, Esq.
          LIT LAW FIRM
          230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 928-5529
          E-mail: lt@litlaw.net

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


PRIME AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Murillo" Suit Over Employment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Murillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PRIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., a California
Corporation; Fereidon Shemirani, and individual; Melissa
Farahvashi, and individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC 639690 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, November 3, 2016),
challenges Defendants alleged past and ongoing unlawful employment
practices and policies on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated former and current employees of Prime Automotive
throughout California, including locations in the cities of
Gardena and Stockton, whose rights Defendants violated and
continue to violate under California laws.

PRIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. -- http://www.primeautonepa.com/--
deals used cars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
     SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
     11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 575-1827
     Fax: (310) 575-1872
     E-mail: ash@shakourilawfinn.com


SAINTS & SANTOS: Castellanos Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JOSE CASTELLANOS, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. SAINTS & SANTOS
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, PALMISANO CONTRACTORS, LLC, RUFINO'S PAINTING &
CONSTRUCTION, INC., and WILIOMAR OLIVEIRA, Case No. 2:16-cv-02501-
ILRL-JCW (E.D. La.), move for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


SANTA FE, TEXAS: Runs Debtors' Prison, "West" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Texas town is preying on the poor, arresting them for
traffic tickets and locking them in a "debtors' prison" where
they're fed Pop-Tarts, three men claim in a federal class action
in Galveston, Texas.

George West et al. claim the City of Santa Fe's manager, police
chief, City Council and municipal judge held a meeting in the
summer of 2015 where they mulled ways to cover a $650,000 budget
hole.

"Shortly after the meeting about the budgetary shortfall, the
municipal judge raised the fines for all tickets written by the
Santa Fe Police Department," the complaint states.

With the jacked-up fines the municipal court increased its
earnings for the city by $20,045 from the previous year, to
$225,562, according the complaint filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Texas.

Santa Fe, pop. 12,860, is 35 miles southeast of Houston. Its
median household income of around $61,000 is $10,000 more than the
state median, according to city-data.com.

Despite that, there's no shortage of working poor in the city who
can't afford traffic tickets, which makes them targets of the
municipal judge and police chief, the ACLU says.

Joining West as named plaintiffs are Robert Jones and Brady
Fuller. They sued Santa Fe, its Municipal Judge Carlton Getty and
Police Chief Jeffrey Powell on Nov. 3.

Fuller lives in Santa Fe with his wife and three daughters. His
work at a shipyard provides an income that qualifies the family
for food stamps. Fuller says a Santa Fe police officer pulled him
over in a school zone in 2015, though he was not speeding, and
wrote him a ticket for an expired vehicle inspection sticker.

"As opposed to other people, who could write a check to resolve
their cases, Mr. Fuller could not afford to pay his fine
outright," the complaint states.

Fuller says Judge Getty put him on a payment plan, without asking
if he could make the payments or advising him of his right to an
attorney, and a court clerk warned him that if he didn't pay, a
warrant would issue and he would be arrested.

"Neither the municipal judge nor the clerk advised Mr. Fuller
that, by signing the papers for a payment plan, he was pleading to
criminal charges. Mr. Fuller felt that he had no alternative to
signing the papers," the complaint states. "He circled 'no
contest,' but no one explained what that meant. The judge
sentenced Mr. Fuller to a fine."

Fuller says he missed his payments and the court issued a "capias
pro fine warrant" in the judge's name for his arrest. Six months
later, Fuller was pulled over driving his employer's new work
truck by a Texas state trooper who said he couldn't read the
truck's temporary tags.

"The trooper ran Mr. Fuller's license and contacted the Santa Fe
marshal about his capias pro fine warrant. The trooper handcuffed
Mr. Fuller, and the marshal picked him up and took him to jail,"
the complaint states.

It's against the law in Texas to jail people picked up on these
warrants for more than one night, the ACLU says.

"The only liberty deprivation Texas law authorizes for failure to
pay is a capias pro fine warrant directing officers to bring the
person before an appropriate court immediately, or if that is
impossible, to hold her in jail until the next business day," the
lawsuit states.

But Fuller says Santa Fe jailed him for three days, fed him Pop-
Tarts for breakfast and lunch and frozen dinners, if he was lucky.
He says the jail staff forgot to give him his frozen dinner one
night and he grew famished and yelled and kicked the cell door for
an hour to get someone's attention.

"Because nobody was near the jail cells at night, and nobody was
monitoring the video feed from the jail cells, it took that long
for a staff member to realize that Mr. Fuller was trying to get
someone's attention," the complaint states.

The employee, annoyed with Fuller for making so much noise, zapped
his dinner in a microwave and left it sitting for an hour before
giving the cold meal to Fuller, according to the 69-page lawsuit.
On Fuller's third day in the jail, he says, the staff offered him
a deal: Clean their offices and he could get out early.

"Fuller felt angry that he was being pressured to do cleaning for
the police department, after having been in jail for three days,
just because he didn't have the money to pay his fines. But he did
the cleaning anyway because it was his fastest way out," he says
in the complaint.

George West, 57, and Robert Jones, 24, also were issued traffic
tickets by Santa Fe police and fear they will be jailed because
they can't afford them and have outstanding warrants. Judge Getty
has also fined them for failure to pay. West owes the city $1,500;
Jones owes it $850, according to the lawsuit.

The ACLU seeks class certification and special damages for lost
wages, child care, vehicle impoundment costs and other fees
arising from the city's alleged unconstitutional practice of
jailing debtors.  They claim the defendants violates their rights
to due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel; the Eighth
Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment
(inadequate food); and equal protection, for jailing people for
failing to pay a fine.  Their ACLU attorney Trisha Trigilio said
in a statement: "The municipality uses its law enforcement power
to extort payments from its own residents and punish them for
their poverty. We are confident that our efforts in this
litigation will put an end to Santa Fe's unconstitutional
practices."

Santa Fe city attorney Ellis Ortego did not respond to a request
for comment.

The ACLU of Arkansas filed a similar federal class action in
August for four residents of Sherwood, Ark., against the city and
a state judge, accusing them of jailing poor people who owe court
fines and fees stemming from misdemeanor "hot check" convictions
with no regard for their ability to pay.

Also in August, 13 cities in St. Louis County were sued for
jailing people who are too poor to pay fines for traffic tickets
and petty misdemeanors. Many of those lawsuits, against cities
near Ferguson, Mo., also alleged racial discrimination, an element
missing from the recent Texas case.

Other debtors' prison lawsuits have been filed in Georgia; New
Orleans; San Francisco; Benton County, Wash.; Alexander City,
Ala.; and Douglas County, (Omaha) Neb.

All these lawsuits were filed after the fatal shooting of black
teenager Michael Brown by a white Ferguson, Mo. police officer in
August 2014, which led to months of protests that cities were
using their court systems and police to fleece poor people, many
of them black, with petty fines.


SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Files New Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Saeid Azimpour
has filed a new complaint asserting claims and prayers for relief
similar to those in the dismissed case.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging
he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow
at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the
pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for
the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number
previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action
including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive
trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota
false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the
California unfair competition law, violation of the California
false advertising law and violation of the California remedies
act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who "purchased
one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a
discount from the original retail price at any time between
December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff sought injunctive relief,
damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees.

On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
On August 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a new complaint asserting
claims and prayers for relief similar to those described above.

"We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend this case," the Company said.

Select Comfort offers consumers high-quality, innovative and
individualized sleep solutions and services, which include a
complete line of Sleep Number(R) beds and bedding accessories. Our
business has three significant competitive advantages: proprietary
sleep innovations, ongoing customer relationships and exclusive
distribution.


SENTRY INSURANCE: Court Awards Atty's Fees in "Coleman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM A. COLEMAN, MARY A. COLEMAN, ALAN
LEMKE, and KAREN LEMKE, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1411-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge
Staci M. Yandle granted the plaintiffs' motion for award of
attorneys' fees and class representative incentive fees.

The amended class action complaint alleged that Sentry Insurance a
Mutual Company, breached its auto insurance "Payback Agreement"
with the class of plaintiffs, who were Sentry insureds.

In the course of litigation, the parties agreed to engage in
settlement negotiations at the suggestion of Magistrate Judge
Stephen C. Williams.  On June 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) attaching the Amended Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Sentry Insurance a Mutual Company
for the Court's review.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement provide for Sentry to pay
$5,718,825 in cash into a Settlement Fund for the benefit of the
Class Members, which Sentry has done.  In addition, Sentry will
pay all costs of notice and distribution of the Settlement Fund to
the 6,847 Class Members.

The Plaintiffs then moved for final approval of the Settlement,
which the Court has granted by separate order, and for an award of
$1,906,275 in attorneys' fees and a $3,000 class representative
fee to each class representative to be paid from the $5,718,825
Settlement Fund, with the remainder to be distributed pro rata to
the Class Members.

Judge Yandle found that the requested incentive fee is well within
the range of class representative fees in class action litigation.
Thus, the judge authorized and directed the payment of a $3,000
incentive fee to each class representative from the Settlement
Fund.

Judge Yandle also found that the ex ante approach in the case
leads to a contingent fee award of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund,
and granted the request for attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,906,275.00.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's October 27, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/q56h25 from Leagle.com.

William A Coleman, Mary A Coleman, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher A. Koester -- koester@taylorlaw.net -- Taylor Law
Offices, Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen &
Malad, LLP, Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com --
Cohen & Malad, LLP & Vess Allen Miller --
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad, LLP.

Alan Lemke, Karen Lemke, Plaintiffs, represented by Vess Allen
Miller, Cohen & Malad, LLP.

Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company, Defendant, represented by Jason
D. Johnson -- jjohnson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & W.
Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.


SILVER WHEATON: Class Certification Sought in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Joe Elek and Named Plaintiffs Thomas Bartsch,
Jeffrey Frohwerk, Larry Brandow, Diana Choi, Ben Potaracke,
Charles Montgomery, Jedrzej Borowczyk, and Charles Remmel move for
class certification in the lawsuit titled In re Silver Wheaton
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146-CAS-JEM (C.D.
Cal.).  The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All persons and entities who purchased the publically traded
     securities of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("SW") (i) on a United
     States exchange, or (ii) in a transaction in the United
     States, during the period from March 30, 2011 to July 6,
     2015, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior to
     July 6, 2015.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all
     present and former officers and directors of SW and any
     subsidiary thereof, members of such excluded persons'
     families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
     or assigns and any entity which such excluded persons
     controlled or in which they have or had a controlling
     interest.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-2684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  jHorne@rosenlegal.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Summary Judgment Bids in Bag Fee Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants'
motions for summary judgment are still pending in the class action
filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May
2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also
seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal
district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las
Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1,
2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to
raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In
addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. The parties
engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims. The parties filed motions to exclude the opinions of the
other parties' experts on class certification and on the merits.

On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts.

On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta
from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which
AirTran stopped charging first bag fees).

Defendants submitted a petition to appeal the class certification
decision, which the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
granted on October 7, 2016. Defendants' motions for summary
judgment are still pending.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.   The Company's
wholly owned subsidiaries include AirTran Holdings, LLC, the
parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss Air Fare Suit in NY Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a court has denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss a complaint alleging collusion
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend these civil cases.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.   The Company's
wholly owned subsidiaries include AirTran Holdings, LLC, the
parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Time to Respond to Canada Suits Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the time for the
Company to respond to the remaining class action complaints in
Canada has not yet expired.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and Canada.
Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court and British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec
proceedings.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the
action against the Company in British Columbia.

On September 28, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to discontinue
the proceeding against the Company in Quebec.

The time for the Company to respond to the remaining complaints
has not yet expired. The plaintiffs in the remaining complaints
generally seek damages (including punitive damages in certain
cases), prejudgment interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued
by the defendants as a result of the allegations, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company denies
all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
these civil cases in Canada.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.   The Company's
wholly owned subsidiaries include AirTran Holdings, LLC, the
parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc.


SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Maloney Moves for Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Maloney moves the Court to certify the class described in
the amended complaint of the lawsuit titled DEBBIE MALONEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a FRESH VIEW
SOLUTIONS, and CACH, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01175-NJ (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks the Court to both stay the amended motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7bYNYXt5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: "Leibs" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LEIBS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPREME INDUSTRIES, INC., MARK D. WEBER,
and MATTHEW W. LONG, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08230 (C.D.
Cal., November 4, 2016), was filed under the Securities Exchange
Act for actions that allegedly resulted to Plaintiffs buying
securities at artificially inflated prices.

Defendant manufactures and sells truck bodies and specialty
vehicles in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA AG: Grosvenor Farms Files Suit Over VIPTERA False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
GROSVENOR FARMS, INC., CHARLES A. MCCLINTOCK, LLC: PARTNER, JOHN
L. MCCLINTOCK, LLC: PARTNER, PATMOS, LLC: PARTNER, GEORGE T.
MCCLINTOCK, LLC: PARTNER, PLAINTIFFS VS. SYNGENTA AG, SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SYNGENTA SEEDS,
INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00221-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., November 4,
2016), alleges, among others, on behalf of similarly situated,
that Syngenta falsely advertised VIPTERA corn under the Lanham
Act.

Syngenta AG -- http://www4.syngenta.com/-- is an agribusiness
operating in the crop protection and seeds business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John F. Hawkins, Esq.
     Edward Gibson, Esq.
     HAWKINS, GIBSON, PLLC
     Post Office Box 24627
     Jackson, MS 39225-4627
     Phone: (601) 969-9692
     Fax: (601) 914-3580


TELPLEX COMMUNICATIONS: Mirage Tile Sues Over False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIRAGE TILE & STONE, INC., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TELPLEX COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. BC 639 089, seeks to stop Defendant's
alleged practice of falsely advertising its telephone services and
to obtain redress for a nationwide class of purchasers who were
charged at a higher price than advertised.  The practice allegedly
violates the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair
Competition Law.

Defendant is a corporation with principal place of business and
state of incorporation in Minnesota and is engaged in the sale and
distribution of telephone services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Suit by Registered Nurses Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against antitrust class action lawsuit
filed by registered nurses in San Antonio.

The Company said, "In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio
Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June
2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
a purported class of registered nurses employed by three
unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems allege those
hospital systems, including Baptist Health System, and other
unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section 1 of
the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses'
compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among
themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the
wages paid to such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages
(subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and
attorneys' fees."

"The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the
court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery. We will continue to
seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend ourselves
against the plaintiffs' allegations. Because these proceedings
remain at an early stage, it is impossible at this time to predict
their outcome with any certainty; however, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect
on our business, financial condition or results of operations."

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "Galmi" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMRAM GALMI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
EREZ VIGODMAN, and EYAL DESHEH, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08259
(C.D. Cal., November 6, 2016), alleges violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act for making, among others, allegedly
materially false and misleading statements on its Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED primarily develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a
portfolio of specialty medicines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TREMBLAY PAINTING: Faces "Aiello" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANA AIELLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TREMBLAY PAINTING AND WATERPROOFING, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, and ROBERT TREMBLAY, individually
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-62626-WJZ (S.D. Fla., November 4,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TREMBLAY PAINTING AND WATERPROOFING, INC. provides painting
services to residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     One Flagler
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Fax: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
     E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com


TWITTER INC: Investors Sue Over Stock-Based Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Twitter investors claim in Redwood City, Calif., court that poor
structuring of employee pay has kept the company from flourishing
and caused stock prices to drop.

Investors Johnny Hosey and George Shilliare brought a class action
on November 4, in San Mateo County Superior Court, taking aim
against Twitter, its executives and several prominent investment
banks. The class accuses the social media company of lying in its
public disclosures when it went public in November 2013. The
lawsuit was Top Download for Courthouse News on November 7.

"Unbeknownst to investors who purchased shares in the company's
IPO, the company's registration statement contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and/or was
not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation," the complaint states.

Specifically, they claim say the Silicon Valley heavyweight failed
to disclose the risks inherent in its employee compensation
system.

Twitter rewards many of its employees and executives in particular
with large amounts of company stock as part of its compensation
system. While many companies have similar structural arrangements,
the Wall Street Journal found that Twitter used stock-based
compensation far more than other large companies.

The stock-based compensation costs as a percentage of Twitter's
revenue came in at over 30 percent in 2015. As a point of
comparison, LinkedIn's stock-based compensation was 17 percent of
its revenue, second for major Silicon Valley-based technology
companies, while Facebook was third at roughly 16 percent.

Hosey and Shilliare say this arrangement has caused a toxic spiral
in the stock prices since the IPO offering of $26 a share three
years ago. The stock closed at $18.41 on November 7.

After the stock price stumbled due to slower than expected user
growth in mid-2015, many employees left because the decline in
stock price lowered their compensation. Accordingly, employee
retention has been more difficult -- including the type of top-
tier talent needed to help steer the company through the dynamic,
rapidly-shifting environment of the Silicon Valley technology
sector, the investors say.

"Twitter's steep stock price drop reflects more than a challenging
business environment," the investors say in the complaint. "It
significantly challenged Twitter's ability to perform a key
function, namely, to retain and hire talented employees."

The loss of intellectual capital means the prospect of Twitter
stock returning to its IPO price remains dubious, according to the
complaint.

"Ultimately a 'death spiral' ensues: departing employees weaken
the company's competitiveness; a less competitive company results
in lower user growth which hurts the growth of advertising
revenue; the company's poor performance causes its stock price to
fall; a falling stock price results in reduced compensation to
current and prospective employees causing them to leave for better
prospects, which in turn further weakens the company," the
complaint states.

Prior securities class actions against Twitter have focused almost
exclusively on the statements the company made about user growth
expectations during the IPO, expectations it has fallen short of
particularly when compared to Facebook.  The sag in Twitter's
share price has been widely attributed to the user growth problem,
although others say the platform is too prone to harassment and
abuse.

November 4 lawsuit opens a new front in exploration of the
company's problem -- employee retention and its ties to stock-
based compensation models.

This past January, product head Kevin Weil joined three other top-
level company executives -- HR head Brian Schipper, engineering
head Alex Roetter and media head Katie Jacobs Stanton -- in
walking away from Twitter.

The investors say the stock-based compensation plan and its
potential to affect employee compensation was not disclosed during
the IPO in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. They seek
class certification and damages.

They are represented by Lawrence Rosen in Los Angeles.


UNITED STATES: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Federal Election
--------------------------------------------------------------
JO ANN JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through the
Designated Agency, United States Department of Justice, Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01929-PGB-TBS (November 4, 2016), seeks to stop
the 2016 Federal Presidential Election for violations of the
Voting Rights Laws, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence.

The Plaintiff is:

     Jo Ann Johnson
     1627 Ridge Drive
     Cocoa, FL 32926
     Phone: (321) 704-7460
     E-mail: joannhjohnson@yahoo.com


VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Certification of Class Sought in "Morgan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Morgan moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY MORGAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VIRTUOSO SOURCING GROUP, LLC, and PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01461-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EI4uSgIZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
First Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court's
dismissal of a class action complaint.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015,
the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its
motion to dismiss.

The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6,
2015 and took the motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss.

On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The
First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scheduling order on
December 24, 2015.

On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed their opening brief and
the Company filed its opposition brief on March 7, 2016. On March
24, 2016, the plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument on
the appeal took place on July 26, 2016.

On October 3, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint. As of
September 30, 2016, the Company has not recorded any reserves for
this purported class action.

Vertex is in the business of discovering, developing,
manufacturing and commercializing medicines for serious diseases.


VIGO IMPORTING: Must Defend Against "Fonseca" Suit, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VIGO
IMPORTING CO., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02055-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Luis Diego Zapata Fonesca brought the putative consumer class
action against Vigo Importing Co. under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA) for violations of California's consumer
protection statutes, alleging that Vigo sold, labeled, and
marketed certain products as containing octopus, when in reality
the products actually contained jumbo squid.

Vigo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
Fonesca cannot meet the $5 million minimum amount in controversy
necessary for CAFA to convey federal subject matter jurisdiction
over his claims.  Vigo argued that because Vigo's sales did not
exceed a certain amount, the relief sought by Fonesca cannot
possibly meet the minimum $5 million amount in controversy
requirement.

Judge Davila, however, held that, in addition to compensatory
damages, Fonesca also requested punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs which may be considered part
of the amount in controversy in a civil action.  The judge also
added that neither the full retail value of the octopus products
alone, nor the figure for Vigo's actual sales is determinative for
the purposes of estimating damages.  Thus, based on the evidence
presented, Judge Davila held that the court cannot conclude to a
legal certainty that Fonesca's claim is for less than the
jurisdictional amount.

A full-text copy of Judge Davila's October 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/sa0kN4 from Leagle.com.

Luis Diego Zapata Fonseca, Plaintiff, represented by James Paul
Gitkin, Salpeter Gitkin, LLP.

Luis Diego Zapata Fonseca, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Vigo Importing Co., Defendant, represented by Sascha Von Mende
Henry -- shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Juthamas Judy Suwatanapongched --
jsuwatanapongched@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin et al.


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Smith Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE SMITH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS
ANGELES, a California corporation; VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, INC., a
New York corporation; VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NATIONAL SERVICES, a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BC639197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 31, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Volunteers of America of Los Angeles is a California corporation
doing business in California.  Volunteers of America, Inc.
("VOA"), is a New York corporation doing business in California.
Volunteers of America National Services is a Minnesota corporation
doing business in California.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants all operate human services programs under the name
"Volunteers of America."  Volunteers of America owns and operates
over 1,000 office locations around the world.  The Defendants
provide local service programs in the southwest region of the
United States, including California.  According to the Defendants'
Web site, they maintain their corporate headquarters in
Alexandria, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Bagosy, Esq.
          Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310)943-0396
          E-mail: Andrew.Sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jennifer.Bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


VOODOO INC: "Mireles" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE MIRA MIRELES, Plaintiff, v. VOODOO INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04090-ELR (N.D. Ga., November 1, 2016), alleges
failure to pay federally mandated overtime wages to Plaintiff in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff asks the
court to grant conditional certification and provide notice of
this action to all similarly situated individuals.

Defendant VooDoo owns and operates restaurants and a food truck in
the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area, including Genki
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tequiero M. "TK" Smith, Esq.
     BARRETT & FARAHANY
     1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 214-0120
     Fax: (404) 214-0125
     E-mail: tksmith@justiceatwork.com


WESTON EDUCATIONAL: "Evans" Action Seeks to Recover Back Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Weston Educational, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01713 (E.D. Miss., November 2, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages owed under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Weston was a provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States, operating as Heritage College with campus locations
across the United States and as Missouri College in St. Louis,
Missouri. On November 1, 2016, Weston ceased operations, closed
its business, and terminated its employees, including Plaintiff,
all without prior notice.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
      Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
      818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
      St. Louis, MO 63104
      Tel: (314) 833-4825
           (314) 833-4826
      Email: bwise@prwlegal.com
             plesko@prwlegal.com


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Agreed to Settle Case for $151MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Yawana Wolfe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two companies named as the defendants in a class action stemming
from a 2014 chemical spill and water emergency have agreed to
settle with the plaintiffs for $151 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, West Virginia American Waters
will pay $126 million in damages related to the spill of the
chemical methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM0; Eastman Chemical, the
maker of chemical, will pay $25 million.

The Elk River chemical spill occurred on Jan. 9, 2014 spilled from
a tank farm operated by Freedom Industries. The spill occurred
upstream from the principal West Virginia American Water intake
and treatment and distribution center and the incident left as
many as 300,000 residents in nine counties without potable water
for several days.

The chemical, a by-product of coal mining activities, is not known
to cause fatalities, but it does cause itching or burning of the
eyes, skin, and respiratory tract and is deemed "hazardous" by the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In their lawsuit the plaintiffs said the water company simply
never prepared for such an emergency and that as a result, it was
unable to respond and minimize its impact.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver initially rejected the
proposed settlement, saying that its original language would have
allowed the water company to recover the cost of the settlement
from its customers through a rate case fled with the state Public
Service Commission.

The parties revised the settlement language to remove that
loophole.

The term sheet for the settlement says West Virginia American
Waters will set aside $76 million of the settlement amount for
direct payments to residents and business owners.

Fifty million will be set aside for additional claims such as
those filed by individuals who missed work because of the spill or
were forced to replace hot water tanks and other plumbing
elements.

The case is captioned, CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent
and next friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S. and
MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and as parent of her unborn child,
MARY LACY and JOAN GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER, WENDY RENEE RUIZ
and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and MADDIE
FIELDS and BRENDA BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and
ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC, and DUNBAR
PLAZA, INC., d/b/a DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WEST VIRGINIA-
AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendants., Civil Action No.: 2:14-
01374 (S.D. W.Va.).


WOOD GROUP: "Kibodeaux" Alleges Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KIBODEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP PRODUCTION AND
CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03277 (S.D.
Tex., November 6, 2016), alleges that Defendant does not pay
certain day-rate workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wood Group is professional staffing business providing personnel
and support services for the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


* Labaton Sucharow Grows Practices in New York and Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 8 announced the addition of partner
Michael P. Canty, and of counsel Thomas P. Preston and Ian
"Connor" Bifferato, to the Firm's roster of litigators. The three
attorneys bring impressive experience to the Firm's deep bench in
the Securities and Corporate Governance and Shareholder Rights
Litigation practices.

"Labaton Sucharow's track record of success throughout the years
is undoubtedly due to a talented group of attorneys who are
committed to prosecuting corporate misconduct," remarked Canty. "I
look forward to bringing my practice to the Firm and joining the
team."

Working in the Firm's New York hub, Canty, a former Assistant
United States Attorney who served in the Eastern District of New
York, has more than a decade of trial experience in national
security, white collar crime, and cybercrime matters. Canty most
recently served as the Deputy Chief in the Office's General Crimes
Section. He also served in the Office's National Security and
Cybercrime Section where he focused on investigating and
prosecuting terrorism related offenses. Prior to joining the U.S.
Attorney's Office, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for
the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, where he handled
complex state criminal offenses.

Before becoming a prosecutor, Canty worked as a Congressional
Staff Member for the United States House of Representatives. He
primarily served as a liaison between the Majority Leader's Office
and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

With more than 40 years of experience, Thomas P. Preston is based
out of the Firm's Delaware office and focuses on analyzing and
resolving commercial disputes through mediation, arbitration, and
litigation. Preston's extensive background covers several practice
areas, including corporate governance, shareholder rights,
securities, antitrust, fiduciary duties, bankruptcy, and other
financial and regulatory matters, as well as in higher education
legal matters. Prior to his new role at the Firm, Preston served
as General Counsel for Delaware State University.

Joining the Firm's Wilmington, Delaware office, Bifferato has over
20 years of experience representing investors in corporate
governance and transactional matters, including class action and
derivative litigation. Bifferato has worked among a broad range of
practice areas, including commercial and complex litigation,
alternative dispute resolution, business reorganization,
creditors' rights, and commercial bankruptcy.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Sanctions in "Lund" Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTORIA LUND, individually and as
successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased; DAVID LUND, an
individual; and SHEILA LUND, an individual, as legal heirs of
WILLIAM LUND, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA
MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV
13-02776 DDP (VBKx)(C.D. Calif.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted the motion filed by the Plaintiffs for
terminating sactions against defendant General Dynamics
Corporation, finding that dismissal is not warranted and lesser
sanctions would adequately remedy the prejudice suffered by the
Plaintiffs based on General Dynamics' repeated failure to make
available a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative.  A full-text
copy of Judge Pregerson's Order dated October 24, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/CzSHbp from Leagle.com.

In the same case, Judge Pregerson denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for issue of sanctions against Electric Boat Corporation for
spoliation of evidence, finding that the Plaintiffs have not met
their burden of demonstrating that Electric Boat has spoliated or
withheld any relevant evidence.  A full-text copy of Judge
Pregerson's Order dated October 24, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/EoH7Th from Leagle.com.

Victoria Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz
and Luxenberg PC.

Victoria Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Shef, Weitz and
Luxenburg PC., Josiah W. Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D.
Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Peter C. Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg,
P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock.

David Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah W.
Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D. Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg
PC, Peter C. Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock.

Sheila Lund, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah W.
Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D. Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg
PC, Peter C. Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by James P.
Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP.

BW IP Inc, Defendant, represented by Holly Acevedo, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP, Keith M. Ameele, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Stephen
J. Foley, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Joshua R. Shoumer, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M. Davis, K&L Gates
LLP, Bradley W. Gunning, K&L Gates LLP, Kathleen L. Beiermeister,
Meagher and Geer PLLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Sechler, K&L Gates
LLP, pro hac vice & William M. Starr, Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice.

Electric Boat Corporation, Defendant, represented by James C.
Parker, Hugo Parker LLP, Charles S. Park, Hugo Parker, LLP,
Christina M. Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP, Edward R. Hugo, Brydon
Hugo and Parker, Gregory S. Rosse, Hugo and Parker, Jeffrey P.
Wilson, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M. Rickenbacher, Hugo
Parker LLP, Paul M. Bessette, Demler Armstrong and Rowland LLP &
Shelley K. Tinkoff, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles S.
Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina M. Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP,
Edward R. Hugo, Brydon Hugo and Parker, Gregory S. Rosse, Hugo and
Parker, Jeffrey P. Wilson, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M.
Rickenbacher, Hugo Parker LLP, Paul M. Bessette, Demler Armstrong
and Rowland LLP & Shelley K. Tinkoff, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Pietrykowski, Gordon and Rees LLP, G. Jeff Coons, Gordon and Rees
LLP & Glen R. Powell, Gordon and Rees LLP.

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, represented by Jonathan E.
Meislin, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum LLP, Robert S. Kraft, Bassi
Edlin Huie and Blum LLP & E. Reno Cross, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum
LLP.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo E.
Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G. Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo E.
Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G. Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter B. Langbord,
Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Anna K. Milunas, Foley and Mansfield
PLLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell, Gordon
and Rees LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin D. Jamison,
Pond North LLP, Rochelle R. Ileto, Pond North LLP, Russell W.
Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP & Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand "Legeaux"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, in an Order and Reasons dated October 24,
2016, denied the motion to remand the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled NOLAN LEGEAUX ET AL., v. BORG-WARNER CORPORATION ET AL.,
Civil Action No. 16-13773 (E.D. La.), finding that complete
diversity exists between the parties and "removal is improper when
the action against a nondiverse defendant is automatically stayed
[due to bankruptcy] after the plaintiff files suit in state court,
but removal is proper if the bankruptcy court stays all actions
against the nondiverse party before the plaintiff files suit."

A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/tCNc0F from Leagle.com.

Nolan Legeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Alex S. Dunn, Jr., Gori,
Julian & Associates, P.C..

Susan Legeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Alex S. Dunn, Jr., Gori,
Julian & Associates, P.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stacey
Leigh Strain, Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Caterpillar Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Kimberly C. Delk, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Stephanie Noriea Murphy,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Angela M. Bowlin,
Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A.
Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R.
Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

CertainTeed Corporation Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur
Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP,
Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy Harrison,
Jr., Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Sales & Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Barnes, Jude & Jude, PLLC.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Dogan &
Wilkinson, PLLC, Barry C. Campbell, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC,
Hanson Douglas Horn, Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Kevin M. Melchi,
Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC.

DAP Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Brandie Mendoza
Thibodeaux, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, B. Adam Hays, Swetman
Baxter Massenburg, LLC, Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP, David R. Frohn, Swetman Baxter Massenburg, Glenn
L.M. Swetman, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Heather Cheesbro,
Ungarino & Eckert, LLC, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor
Manning LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Meaghan
M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Meghan B. Senter, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Natasha Amber Corb, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Daniel Rolando
Estrada, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & James Matthew
Matherne, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit,
Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Jay
Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller &
Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann
McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gayla
M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller & Anthony
M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur Wendel Stout,
III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch
Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Wendel
Stout, III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP,
Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy Harrison,
Jr., Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP, Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick
Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

Vigor Industrial LLC, Defendant, represented by Scott C. Seiler,
Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B.
Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis & Tiffany L.
Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

Vigor Shipyards, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott C. Seiler,
Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B.
Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis & Tiffany L.
Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Massenburg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion
Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Meaghan M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP & Meghan B. Senter, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in "Zellner"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment in the appeals case
captioned CAROL J. ZELLNER, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Clifford R. Zellner, (Dec.),
Appellant, No. 14-3270 (3d Cir.), in relation to In re: Asbestos
Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), and remanded for further
proceedings.

In this case, Carol J. Zellner, on behalf of the estate of
Clifford R. Zellner, appealed the district court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of CBS Corporation (a/k/a Westinghouse),
arguing that the district court erred in finding that she failed
to establish a genuine dispute about whether CBS switchgear had
deteriorated and exposed her now deceased husband to asbestos-
containing dust.

The Third Circuit, given its holding in Frankenberger v. CBS
Corporation (In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), No. 15-
1988, 2016 WL 4750507 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2016), held that Mrs.
Zellner's evidence of deterioration and asbestos exposure was
sufficient to survive summary judgment.  The Third Circuit pointed
out that CBS' central argument to the contrary is that Mrs.
Zellner failed to introduce first-hand testimony or other factual
support for her assertion that the switchgear at Fort Howard was
in a deteriorated condition at the time of Mr. Zellner's alleged
exposure.  This ignores the extensive evidence in the form of
expert testimony that switchgear regularly deteriorates over time
due to normal operations and cleaning, the Third Circuit said.

The Third Circuit further held that evidence here is no less
compelling.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit concluded that a
reasonable jury could find that Mr. Zellner was exposed to
asbestos-containing dust from CBS switchgear and that it was a
substantial factor in his fatal illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Review Summary Judgment Grant to AT&T
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
DANIELLE TETTEH, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate
of DANIEL L. JONES, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA,
INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-08-023 ASB (Del. Sup.),
Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware denied
the Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument and/or Reconsideration of
the Court's August 31, 2016 Order granting defendant AT&T Corp.'s
motion for summary judgment.

According to Judge Medinilla, the Plaintiff has failed to meet her
burden of demonstrating the Court either misapprehended the law or
facts presented previously on the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, much less overlook any controlling precedent.  Judge
Medinilla said the Plaintiff's Motion reargues facts that were
presented to the Court in the parties' briefs and at oral
argument.  Consequently, the Plaintiff remains unable to
demonstrate how AT&T assumed a legal obligation otherwise owed by
Mr. Jones' employer to survive summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Medinilla's Order dated October 25,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/6G4V0w from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Rescind Remand Order in "Hammell" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury case originally brought in the New
Jersey Superior Court style LINDA HAMMELL, individually and as
executrix of the estate of ARTHUR HAMMELL, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
14-0013 (MLC)(D.N.J.), Judge Mary L. Cooper of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, denied with
prejudice Crane Co.'s Motion for Leave to Rescind Remand Order and
Re-file and Supplement Its Motion for Summary Judgment.

In this case, after the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the three defendants that had removed the case, the
District Court discretionarily remanded the remaining claims to
state court.  The Third Circuit subsequently ordered the District
Court to consider additional questions regarding the grant of
summary judgment in favor of the removing defendants.  In light of
that ruling, Crane, one of the remanded defendants, filed the
present Motion for Leave to Rescind Remand Order and Re-file and
Supplement Its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Cook held that there is nothing inherently unjust about
Crane continuing to litigate its case in state court -- indeed,
Crane does not explain why justice would be better served by
vacating the Remand Order.  In contrast, vacating the Remand Order
carries its own risks of injustice as there is an open question as
to whether the state court proceedings undertaken post-remand
would be void or voidable as a result of the Court vacating a 16-
month old Remand Order and retaking jurisdiction over the claims
from state court, Judge Cook further held.  Entering such a
procedural morass would undermine the very principles of comity
and efficiency that counseled towards remanding the claims in the
first place, the judge added.

A full-text copy of Judge Cook's Memorandum Opinion dated October
26, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/6k7Fpv from Leagle.com.

ARTHUR HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC.

ARTHUR HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC, ROBERT GANNON STEVENS,
JR., SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER PC & JOSEPH J. MANDIA,
LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP.

LINDA HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC, ROBERT E.
LYTLE, SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC, JOSEPH J.
MANDIA, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, JEFFREY P. BLUMSTEIN, SZAFERMAN,
LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN, BLADER & LEHMANN, PC, ROBERT E. LYTLE,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC & ROBERT GANNON STEVENS,
JR., SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER PC.

LINDA HAMMELL, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE,
SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM,
LAWLER & BUBA.

ARVINMERITOR, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH P. LASALA,
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & DONNA DUBETH
GARDINER, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
WILLIAM ALLEN GOLDSTEIN, MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN.

CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LINTON W. TURNER,
JR., MAYFIELD, TURNER, O'MARA & DONNELLY.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

CLARK RELIANCE CORP., Defendant, represented by STEVEN ALLEN
WEINER, O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC.

CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by TARA LYNNE PEHUSH, K&L GATES
LLP, LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & MICHAEL V.
GILBERTI, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C..

EATON CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL DAVID JARDIM,
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER & ROBERT M. GILMARTIN, JR.,
McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL DORON
GOLDKLANG, LECLAIR RYAN & ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

FMC CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

GENLYTE GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by SANDRA K. STEINMAN,
DARGER ERRANTE YAVITZ & BLAU LLP.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ETHAN D.
STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK,
LEADER & BERKON LLP.

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented
by ELIZABETH A. WEILL, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC &
ROBERT J. HAFNER, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN & JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

MAREMONT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by
KATHLEEN P. RAMALHO, BREUNINGER & FELLMAN & SUSAN B. FELLMAN,
BREUNINGER & FELLMAN, ESQS..

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant,
represented by ELIZABETH A. WEILL, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOT,
LLC & ROBERT J. HAFNER, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC.

PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant,
represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC., Defendant, represented by ROY VIOLA, JR.,
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG.

PROGRESS LIGHTING, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID H.
KOCHMAN, HARRIS BEACH, LLP.

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant, represented by DONNA DUBETH
GARDINER, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
PATRICK O'LEARY, Troutman Sanders LLP.

SQUARE-D CO., Defendant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

TODD SHIPYARDS CORP., Defendant, represented by ERIC THOM EVANS,
Gordon & Rees LLP.

UNION CARBIDE CORP., Defendant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK
PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

WARREN PUMPS, Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL,
DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

CLARK-RELIANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH IRA
FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

GENLYTE GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by SANDRA K. STEINMAN,
DARGER ERRANTE YAVITZ & BLAU LLP & SANDRA K. STEINMAN, DARGER
ERRANTE YAVITZ & BLAU LLP.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R.I. Woman Sues Over Talc Powder Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Irma Verdolotti, a resident of Warwick, Rhode Island, sued several
companies alleging that her use of Shower to talc powder products,
specifically Shower talcum powder, Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder
products, Coty Air Spun loose powder, exposed her to asbestos and
she contracted mesothelioma as a result of such exposure.

The Plaintiff seeks trial by jury and judgment against the
Defendants for compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and cost of suit.

The case is IRMA VERDOLOTTI, Plaintiff, v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC.; COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; COTY,
INC.; CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; PFIZER, INC.; VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA LLC;
WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50;
Defendants, MID-L 05973-16, filed with the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division-Middlesex County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Lytle, Esq.
     SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, P.C.
     101 Grovers Mill Road, Suite 200
     Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
     Tel: (609) 275-0400

        -- and --

     Leah C. Kagan, Esq.
     SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, P.C.
     3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 540
     Long Beach, CA 90806
     Tel: (562) 590-3400


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues Over Lung Cancer in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Leo Nesslein and Janet Nesslein filed a lawsuit against
several companies alleging that the acts and omissions of the
defendants and their defective asbestos-containing products was a
substantial factor in increasing Mr. Nesslein's risk of lung
cancer.

According to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Nesslein was not aware at the
time of exposure that asbestos or asbestos containing products
presented any risk and/or disease.

Mr. Nesslein seeks general damages; loss of icome, wages, and
earning potential; medical and related expenses; damages for pain
and suffering and mental anguish; and exemplary and punitive
damages.  Mrs. Nesslein seeks damages for loss of consortium
and/or society.  The Plaintiffs also seek cost of suit.

The case is CLARENCE LEO NESSLEIN and JANET NESSLEIN, Plaintiffs,
vs. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a/k/a Buffalo Pumps, Inc.;
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL INC.; CBC CORPORATION, a Delaware corp.
f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corp., a
Pennsylvania Corp. f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp.; CRANE CO.;
EATON ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-
interest to Cutler-Hammer; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; GRINNELL LLC,
formerly known as Grinnell Corporation, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company,
Inc.; IMO INDUSTRIES CO., individually & as successor-in-interest
to Delaval Steam Turbine Co.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; ITT
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor to Bell & Gosbett
Company; JOHN K. BICE, INC.; METALCLAD INSULATION, LLC; ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION, INC., f/k/a Allen Bradley, Inc., indivually and as
successor-in-interest to Rostone Corporation; SQUARE D. COMPANY, a
division of Schneider Electric Company; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
WARREN PUMPS, LLC; and DOES 1-500 INCLUSIVE; Defendants, Case No.
BC637743, filed with the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tammy Barcenilla, Esq.
     Randa Farid Ezzat, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
     525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Tel: (310) 331-8224
     Fax: (310) 736-2877


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Project Site in Stratford
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Shay, writing for Connecticut Post, reported that the state
Department of Transportation says asbestos has been found in the
soil at the site of the planned Exit 33 project on I-95.

Preliminary indications find there is no immediate threat to
public health, according to the the DOT and the Department of
Public Health.

As a precaution, however, DOT officials say they are suspending
roadside maintenance activities through this stretch of I-95
"until the situation can be more completely assessed."

"There is no reason to believe at this time that the asbestos,
which is a known carcinogen, found at the Exit 33 project site is
posing an exposure concern to workers or the community," said DPH
Commissioner Dr. Raul Pino in a release announcing the discovery.
At this time, there is no construction activity occurring in the
vicinity of Exit 33.

The estimated $24 million project calls for two additional ramps
at Exit 33 on Interstate 95. Those Exit 33 ramps were purposely
left out during construction of I-95 in the 1950s to make it
harder for drivers to avoid the Stratford toll plaza, which was
removed after a 1983 crash in which a tractor-trailer with its
driver asleep at the wheel slammed into a line of cars waiting to
pay, killing seven people and injuring others.

Town and state officials have argued that the new ramps would
alleviate congestion on local streets leading to and from Exits 32
and 34, which are 2.4 miles apart. Designers went so far as to
track scores of cars by helicopter as they moved through Stratford
to determine which ones would use the new ramps. Animated computer
simulations were also created showing anticipated traffic flows
with and without the new ramps and their related improvements in
place.

Some residents expressed opposition to the plan, fearing that
toxic waste would be disturbed. Stratford Action for the
Environment, or SAFE, collected more than 2,000 signatures in
opposition to the idea. Neighbors said the the construction would
compromise the bedrock that's protecting them from waste. Some
said they would have to install volatile organic compound fans in
their units, which will drop their resale values.

State officials said earlier construction was expected to begin
sometime next year.

"The asbestos was detected during preliminary design work for this
project. CTDOT found the presence of both Raymark Industries waste
and asbestos in surface soils at several locations, although the
source of the surface asbestos contamination has not been
pinpointed," DOT said in a release.

The Raymark waste was left behind by the manufacturer of brakes,
clutch discs and other friction components for the automotive
industry. The Raymark plant used to stand where Walmart is today;
the polluted soil it generated was used as fill in a number of
places in town. Raymark closed in 1989.

According to EPA's Regional Administrator, Curt Spalding, "This
area was not previously investigated during the testing of more
than 500 properties by EPA in the 1990s because there was no
evidence of Raymark waste being dumped there. Fortunately, in
September, EPA announced its final cleanup plan for several
Raymark waste areas which provides funding and will allow the Exit
33 area to be addressed in a consistent manner that ensures
protection of public health."

DOT officials surveyed the site last week week to determine the
best path forward, which will include a testing and monitoring
program for the area to measure specific air soil asbestos levels,
followed by any specific recommendations once the data is
collected and analyzed. The testing is expected to begin in mid-
to late November. Furthermore, CTDOT is suspending any roadside
maintenance activities through this stretch of I-95 until the
situation can be more completely assessed.

"The air and ground monitoring is a prudent and precautionary
strategy," said DOT Commissioner James P. Redeker. "In the coming
weeks, motorists may see crews along the highway conducting these
tests. To date, we are unaware of any adverse effects to anyone in
this vicinity. We will continue to advise workers and the people
of Connecticut as developments warrant."

DOT is in ongoing consultation with the federal Environmental
Protection Agency regarding the new Raymark waste findings. The
department's response to the surface asbestos contamination is
being coordinated with the DPH, Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, the Department of Labor and ConnOSHA --
the Connecticut arm of the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. DEEP, specifically, will be involved in the
monitoring and any remediation process along with the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"We are working closely with DOT, state and local health agencies,
and the U.S. EPA to ensure that this area is managed in a manner
that minimizes risk to public health or the environment," said
DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee. "Our goal is to work together to
make certain the public and on-site workers are protected from
exposures to any contaminated soil both now and in the future."
Like many Connecticut towns, Stratford has been home to companies,
such as Raymark Industries and Tilo Roofing Company, using
asbestos in their products for decades. Specifically, CTDOT has
identified a previously unknown deposit of Raymark waste located
below the surface and not known to have been disturbed in the
recent Moses Wheeler Bridge reconstruction activities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma May Have Caught Cancer From Overalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Greaves, writing for Torquay Herald Express, reported that a
59-year-old woman died of an asbestos-related cancer which she may
have caught as a child exposed to dust on her father's work
overalls, an inquest has been told.

Julie Elizabeth Lawless, of Wrights Lane, Torquay, died on New
Year's Eve 2015 from mesothelioma.

She had been diagnosed with the cancer -- linked to exposure to
asbestos -- in September last year.

Torbay and South Devon coroner Ian Arrow recorded a narrative
verdict at her inquest.

Mrs Lawless (nee Cowell) was described by her family as a 'loving,
caring and happy' mother and grandmother by her family.

Mr Arrow said: "On the balance of probabilities Julie has been
exposed to asbestos during her lifetime.

"I am satisfied she's been exposed to asbestos dust in her family,
in so far as her father's dust on his overalls, or may have been
exposed to dust at work.

"She died from mesothelioma. On the balance of probabilities she
contracted it as a result of exposure to asbestos dust during her
lifetime."

The inquest heard from Mrs Lawless' sister Elaine Cowell.

She said their father had been an engineer for BT and his job
involved cutting cables lagged with asbestos.

"He would come home in uniform and flakes used to come off," she
said.

"His uniform was an all-in-one overall which he would stay in for
an hour."

She said the uniform would be washed in the machine and hung on
the rack. Julie would see 'flakes' on it.

In later life Mrs Lawless worked at River Island and Goldsmiths,
among other places. She was also employed as a care administrator.

In June 2015 she complained of a pain, which she initially thought
was a trapped nerve.

In September she was diagnosed with mesothelioma and given between
one year and 18 months to live.

On December 28 she was admitted to Torbay Hospital but failed to
respond to treatment and died three days later.

Cause of death was pneumonia caused by mesothelioma.

Her sister said: "Julie was happy, jolly, loved her family,
children and grandchildren and was loved by all. She was a very
special person and we all miss her deeply."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies From Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Gazette reported that working at the Walls Ice Cream factory and
in the dry docks at Gloucester in the 1970s caused the death of an
electrician from Wotton-under-Edge 40 years later, an inquest
heard today.

Malcolm Smith, 66, of Coombe Road, died on May 22 this year from
malignant mesothelioma -- a lung cancer for which the only known
cause is asbestos exposure.

Although, unusually, no asbestos fibres were found in his lungs at
post mortem this was probably because he had digested them at a
faster rate than most, said the Gloucestershire senior coroner
Katy Skerrett.

She recorded a conclusion that Mr Smith died from industrial
disease.

In a statement Mr Smith made after being diagnosed with the
terminal cancer in January 2013 he said he started work as an
apprentice electrician in 1966 and at the time asbestos was
'ubiquitous' on building sites.

He worked at the Walls Ice Cream factory in Gloucester installing
electrical conduits where the room was thick with asbestos dust,
he stated.

In 1972 he worked on ships being refurbished in the dry dock and
again the air would be full of asbestos dust below decks, he said.

"In the mid 70s asbestos was phased out of most buildings but by
then I had been severely exposed."

He recalled he had also worked at one time for an electrical
company where there was some asbestos lagging and sheets of the
material were being cut.

Mr Smith said he suddenly became breathless in October 2012 and
was referred for medical tests. On New Year's Eve he underwent a
biopsy and in January 2013 he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

His condition then slowly deteriorated until his death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Improper Asbestos Disposal Has Serious Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
If safe asbestos disposal protocols are not followed to the
letter, it can have devastating effects on one's health. Home and
business owners in the Perth area are not immune to these effects.
They also aren't exempt from asbestos exposure, as most buildings
built before 1991 have Asbestos Containing Materials, also called
"ACM's."

At one time, asbestos mining was a large industry in Australia.
Crocidolite and chrysotile, two minerals that are used to create
asbestos, were a large part of Australia's mining industry until
the latter months of 1984. Between 1980-1983, Australia imported
approximately 1.5 tonnes of asbestos.

Asbestos was one of the most popular building materials in
Australia until its use was banned in 1991. It is a part of most
buildings built before it was banned in Australia.

Asbestos is Ubiquitous in Older Buildings

As long as they haven't been remodeled, many buildings still
contain large amounts of asbestos. If asbestos isn't exposed and
is sealed with paint, it is supposedly safe. However, there are
many situations where buildings with asbestos in them represent a
severe health risk. Weathering of ACM's can cause ambient asbestos
in that building.

Damage to ACM's can also cause asbestos exposure. When buildings
that were built with ACM's are renovated or demolished, it is
important to strictly obey all asbestos disposal protocols. It is
not recommended that amateur renovators work with asbestos because
they don't have the experience to do so.

When asbestos is disposed of, it is recommended that a
professional asbestos removal firm removes the asbestos. Then, the
asbestos should be placed into special skip bins and taken to a
safe disposal facility.

This is the only truly safe way to remove asbestos and avoid
exposure.

The Health Consequences of Asbestos Exposure

When asbestos is exposed, the fibres contaminate the immediate
environment. When they are breathed in, they tend to settle in the
bottom of the lungs and stay there. This can cause a number of
lung diseases.

When fibres are trapped in the lungs, the lungs grow cysts around
the fibres. They eventually become the causes of such diseases as
mesothelioma, other forms of lung cancer, asbestosis and many
lesser conditions.

Mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma, which is now just called mesothelioma, is
a malignant and almost always fatal cancer that affects the
linings of the lungs, stomach and heart. Mesothelioma is actually
rare but shows up in a disproportionate number of people exposed
to asbestos. Most studies indicate that the amount and frequency
of asbestos exposure directly influence the chances of developing
mesothelioma.

Asbestosis

When asbestos is trapped in the lungs and cysts form around it,
the lungs eventually scar. This is called asbestosis. Asbestosis
interferes with breathing as it diminishes the ability of the
lungs to expand and contract.

Other Conditions

Asbestos exposure can cause numerous other conditions, such as
pleural plaques or pleural effusion.

That is why proper asbestos disposal is so crucial to keeping
Perth homeowners healthy.

AAA Skips offers skip bins for hire and asbestos disposal bins to
all Perth suburbs north of the river. They combine the
personalised service of a family business with the resources of a
large business. Their environmentally friendly three stage
recycling process guarantees that anything which can be recycled
will be recycled. To learn more, call 0438 918 850 or visit their
website: http://www.minibinsperth.com.au/.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Settles $126-Mil. Asbestos Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Neill, writing for The Insurance Insider, reported that US
carrier Travelers has agreed a pre-tax settlement with one of
several defendants in a long running reinsurance dispute over
historical asbestos liabilities resulting in a $126.1mn gain for
the company.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing today the
company said it expected to receive the payment in the fourth
quarter, and would recognise a $126.1mn pre-tax and $82mn after-
tax gain in its next earnings disclosure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $12.5MM Against Caterpillar Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York jury has awarded
$12.5 million to plaintiffs asserting claims of a former mechanic,
who allegedly developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

In the Oct. 28 verdict, the New York Supreme Court for New York
County assessed 45 percent liability to the decedent, who smoked
two packs of cigarettes per day. Judge Martin Shulman presided
over the trial.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that George Cooney was
exposed to asbestos-containing products while handling brakes,
clutches and engine gaskets on Caterpillar forklifts he worked on
while employed as a mechanic.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Asbestos Debtors Dismissal Sought
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Schlafmanon, writing for Bankruptcy Company News, reported
that several individual parties filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court a motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of Energy Future
Holdings' "Asbestos Debtors": EECI, EEC Holdings, LSGT SACROC and
LSGT Gas Co. on the grounds that the bankruptcy petitions were not
filed in good faith.

According to documents filed with the Court, "The Asbestos Debtors
did not file the petitions for a valid reorganizational purpose. .
. Under controlling Third Circuit law, this is not a proper
reorganization purpose. And it is inimical to the fundamental
principle that bankruptcy must not be used to obtain a windfall at
the expense of creditors. . . The Asbestos Debtors had been sued
pre-petition for asbestos-related injuries associated with the
Asbestos Debtors' electricity generation activities and
discontinued gas distribution businesses."

The motion continues, "They have assets of at least $990 million
in admittedly valid inter-company claims, which are reinstated by
the Plan. The Debtors have estimated that their annual costs for
resolving asbestos claims are approximately $3 million each year .
. .. The Plan provides that the Asbestos Debtors would remain
separate corporate entities, wholly-owned by reorganized EFH Corp.
which, in turn, will be wholly owned by NextEra, Inc. All EFH
Debtor Intercompany Claims (Class A3), and interests in the EFH
Debtors other than EFH Corp. held by the Asbestos Debtors would be
reinstated. All General Legacy Unsecured Claims, including
Asbestos Claims (Class A3) against the Asbestos Debtors also would
be reinstated. Thus, the only practical effect the Plan would have
on the Asbestos Debtors is that it would allow them to shed their
future liabilities for un-manifested Asbestos Claims, without
compensation."

In addition, "Indeed, the Asbestos Debtors' only apparent purpose
for seeking to maintain Chapter 11 protection is to cleanse
themselves of future liabilities, thus unfairly and improperly
benefitting their controlling parent, EFH Corp., at the expense of
their asbestos victims, in direct contravention of the fundamental
principle of bankruptcy that creditors be paid before stockholders
retain equity."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. High Court Affirms Dismissal of "Deggs"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emmelyn Hart, Esq. -- Emmelyn.Hart@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in an article, wrote that in Deggs
v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Supreme Court Cause No. 91969-1, 2016
Wash. LEXIS 1132 (Oct. 6, 2016), Judy Deggs' wrongful death claims
arose out of an asbestos-related injury to her father Ray
Sundberg. Sundberg served in the United States Navy during the
Second World War and worked for decades thereafter in dockyards
and lumber yards. Throughout his long work life, he was exposed to
asbestos. He was eventually diagnosed with lymphoma, pleural
disease, and asbestosis relating to asbestos exposure. Sundberg
filed a personal injury lawsuit in 1999 against nearly 40
defendants who had some part in exposing him to asbestos. Most
settled; one went to trial where Sundberg prevailed.

Nine years later, Sundberg died of asbestos-related disease. He
was survived by his wife and Deggs. Deggs brought a wrongful death
action as the personal representative of her father's estate. She
primarily named defendants who had not been named in her father's
prior lawsuit, though both suits named Asbestos Corporation
Limited ("ACL"). ACL and another defendant moved to dismiss the
suit as time barred because it was filed more than three years
after Sundberg learned he had asbestos-related diseases. The
statute of limitations on personal injury suits in Washington is
three years. RCW 4.16.080(2). According to ACL, Sundberg did not
have a cause of action against it for his injuries at the time of
his death due to the passage of time. The trial court agreed and
granted the motion.

The Court of Appeals, Division I affirmed over a vigorous dissent.
Deggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 188 Wn. App. 495, 500, 354 P.3d 1,
review granted, 184 Wn.2d 1018, 361 P.3d 746 (2015). The majority
concluded that Deggs could not bring a wrongful death suit after
Sundberg died where Sundberg could not have brought a second
personal injury suit based on his asbestos exposure before he died
because he already had a judgment against ACL and the statute of
limitations had expired against the other defendant. Id. at 511.
The dissent criticized the majority for relying on old precedent
it believed had been undermined by subsequent case law. The
dissent noted that the practical effect of the majority's opinion
is that a wrongful death claim can expire before the decedent
dies. Id. at 511-12.

The Supreme Court of Washington granted Deggs' petition for review
and affirmed over an even more vigorous and scathing dissent.
Numerous amicus curiae, including Washington Defense Trial
Lawyers, weighed in on the debate. The Court spent considerable
time tracing the development of Washington's wrongful death
statute and its common law history before deciding whether Deggs,
as her father's personal representative, could maintain a suit
where her father could not have. The Court did not question
whether Deggs' lawsuit was timely filed, but ultimately held that
any claim was time barred because the statute of limitations ran
on Sundberg's personal injury claims before he died. Despite
suggesting Johnson v. Ottomeier, 45 Wn.2d 419, 423, 275 P.2d 723
(1954), Grant v. Fisher Flouring Mills Co., 181 Wash. 576, 44 P.2d
193 (1935), and Calhoun v. Wash. Veneer Co., 170 Wash. 152, 160,
15 P.2d 943 (1932) (all of which held the lapsing of the statute
of limitations on the underlying personal injury claim bars a
personal representative from bringing a wrongful death claim) may
have been incorrect at the time they were announced, the Court
declined to overturn them where Deggs did not show they were
harmful. Slip. Op. at 15 (noting the Court will not overturn
precedent unless there has been a "clear showing that an
established rule is incorrect and harmful."). The Court affirmed
the dismissal of Deggs' lawsuit, reaffirming that a wrongful death
action accrues at the time of death so long as there is a
"subsisting cause of action in the deceased" at the time of death,
subject to exceptions not present in this case.

Justice Steven Gonzalez authored the majority opinion in which
Justices Susan Owens, Mary Fairhurst, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, and
Mary Yu concurred. Justice Debra Stephens authored the dissenting
opinion in which Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justices Charles
Johnson and Charles Wiggins concurred. The opinion may be access
from the Court's website or at
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/919691.pdf.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cuba's Continued Asbestos Use Raises Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that the island nation of Cuba evokes
many images and emotions, with few thinking of the impact of
cancer and mesothelioma. Cancer is the most frequently cited cause
of death in Cuba, and health experts point to the country's
continued use of asbestos as one of the leading causes. Doctors
and researchers providing care for Cuban citizens diagnosed with a
number of asbestos-related diseases are hoping that the use of
asbestos will diminish as the embargo on the country is relaxed
and more communication is allowed between Cubans and the rest of
the world.

If you wonder whether this is a legitimate issue, all you need to
do is review the news stories that appear on Cuban television
after the Caribbean country is hit by yet another hurricane. The
coverage shows homes with roofs torn off, then turns to the
asbestos roofing companies and contractors working hard to make
repairs. No mention is made of the dangers faced by those working
in the factories, the roofers, or the people who are living in
these asbestos-contaminated homes. This type of constant exposure
to asbestos has been identified as the primary source of
mesothelioma, asbestosis, and asbestos lung cancer.

In the rest of the industrialized world, the use and sale of
asbestos has largely been banned. The European Union imposed their
ban in 2005 and created an awareness campaign in 2006 using the
motto, "Asbestos is deadly serious." Those in the medical
community have been surprised and saddened that Cuba's strong
medical community has not been more vocal about the impact of the
powerful carcinogen on the community and nation.

Writing in the Cuban newspaper Havana Times, writer Dmitri Prieto-
Samsonov says, "The European Commission has estimated that there
will be 500,000 asbestos-related deaths in the upcoming years, ten
times more than occupational accidents. It is estimated that
asbestos-related cancer will cause more than 200,000 deaths over
the course of the next decade in Great Britain . . .. All of this
may be true, but it seems like none of this is known here in Cuba.
Every time a strong hurricane hits, the tired and smiling faces of
workers making asbestos-cent roofing materials appear ready to
help those who have lost the roofs over their heads and who are in
a hurry to put it back. Roofs that cause cancer. The easy, fast
and cheap always ends up with a high cost to pay: suffering and
death for patients, pain for families, public expenditure on
cytostatic drugs and sophisticated equipment. The dilemma needs to
be resolved."

The story of mesothelioma and asbestos-related cancers in Cuba
follows the same path as did asbestos in the United States: an
awareness of the materials' danger being trumped by an interest in
using what is easiest and least expensive. If you or someone you
love has been a victim of this type of negligence, you may be
eligible to file a lawsuit for compensation against the asbestos
companies. Contact Danziger & De Llano Legal Advocates today at 1-
800-692-8608, or visit our website for more information.
http://mesothelioma.net/mesothelioma-attorneys/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found in Cairnlea
------------------------------------------------
Ben Cameron, writing for Star Weekly, reported that further
asbestos has been found at a building site in Cairnlea.

The Environment Protection Authority said in a statement that
building sheet fragments in rubble dumped at 93 Furlong Road
contains asbestos.

The EPA had given the all clear at the site following "unannounced
works" last Friday by the site owners.

However EPA Executive Director of Regional Service Damian Wells
said a further inspection this week found further asbestos.

"As a precaution, EPA officers inspected the site to conduct a
walk-through and visually identified some material that resembled
asbestos sheet fragments, which was surprising and of concern
given the asbestos clearance letter that we'd received from the
company last Friday evening," he said.

"EPA's test results have now confirmed these fragments are
asbestos."

WorkSafe attended the site yesterday and has asked the site owner
to take new measures to reduce the risk to the community, the EPA
say.

The EPA has demanded the site owner to maintain signage at the
site advising asbestos is present and ensure there are controls in
place to prevent stormwater discharge.

They must also inform a local primary school and surrounding
residents before any asbestos material is removed, and conduct
daily inspections that the rubble remains covered.

"The risk to community remains extremely low and the actions we've
taken are a precaution to give the community confidence that
they're protected from any harm," he said.

The site owner has been given several weeks to remove all waste
from the site.

Brimbank council, which is considering legal action against the
owners, will hold information session tomorrow night at the
Cairnlea Town Centre shopping centre, on Furlong Road, from 4pm to
7pm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 23 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. is facing asbestos claims from 15 plaintiffs in
Mississippi and eight in Louisiana at September 30, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar
complaints were filed in Louisiana.  The plaintiffs, former
employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the
defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud
additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming
negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law.  The
plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, but the court-appointed special master has ruled
that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued
for punitive damages.  At September 30, 2016, 15 plaintiffs have
claims pending in Mississippi and eight plaintiffs have claims
pending in Louisiana in which we have or may have an interest.
We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome.  We have historically
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims.  Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.  The Company specializes
in technically demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business
with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment
drilling services.  The Company's mobile offshore drilling fleet
is considered one of the most versatile fleets in the world.  The
Company contract its drilling rigs, related equipment and work
crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells.
At September 30, 2016, the Company owned or had partial ownership
interests in and operated 58 mobile offshore drilling units,
including 29 ultra-deepwater floaters, seven harsh environment
floaters, four deepwater floaters, eight midwater floaters and 10
high-specification jackups.  At September 30, 2016, the Company
also had five ultra-deepwater drillships and five high-
specification jackups under construction or under contract to be
constructed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Has 280 PI Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing approximately 280
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits at September 30, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in
lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes.  The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and
its operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has
no remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has been
named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in
lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  As of September 30, 2016, the subsidiary
was a defendant in approximately 280 lawsuits, some of which
include multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are
approximately 302 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  For many of these
lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information
from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the
plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any
such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.  The first
of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary
in 1990.  Through September 30, 2016, the costs incurred to
resolve claims, including both defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs, have not been material, all known deductibles
have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's
defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have been met by
insurance made available to the subsidiary.  The subsidiary
continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits, and
we cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may
be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential costs to
resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases.
However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in insurance
limits potentially available to the subsidiary."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.  The Company specializes
in technically demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business
with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment
drilling services.  The Company's mobile offshore drilling fleet
is considered one of the most versatile fleets in the world.  The
Company contract its drilling rigs, related equipment and work
crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells.
At September 30, 2016, the Company owned or had partial ownership
interests in and operated 58 mobile offshore drilling units,
including 29 ultra-deepwater floaters, seven harsh environment
floaters, four deepwater floaters, eight midwater floaters and 10
high-specification jackups. At September 30, 2016, the Company
also had five ultra-deepwater drillships and five high-
specification jackups under construction or under contract to be
constructed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Has $22.9MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries had $22.9 million legal
liabilities for legal actions, including proceedings based on
alleged exposures to asbestos as of September 30, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company states: "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities. As of September 30, 2016, December 31, 2015 and
September 30, 2015, our condensed balance sheets included
liabilities for these legal actions of $22.9 million, $21.2
million and $22.7 million, respectively."

Olin Corporation is a Virginia corporation, incorporated in 1892,
having its principal executive offices in Clayton, MO.  On October
5, 2015, the Company acquired from The Dow Chemical Company (TDCC)
its U.S. Chlor Alkali and Vinyl, Global Chlorinated Organics and
Global Epoxy businesses.

The Company is a manufacturer concentrated in three business
segments: Chlor Alkali Products and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester.
Chlor Alkali Products and Vinyls manufactures and sells chlorine
and caustic soda, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer,
methyl chloride, methylene chloride, chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene and vinylidene
chloride, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide. The Epoxy segment produces and sells a full
range of epoxy materials, including allyl chloride,
epichlorohydrin, liquid epoxy resins and downstream products such
as converted epoxy resins and additives. The Winchester segment
products include sporting ammunition, law enforcement ammunition,
reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and
components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $936MM Asbestos Reserve at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $936
million as of September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
$936 million and $960 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of
$463 million and $458 million, as of September 30, 2016 and
December 31, 2015, respectively.  Reserves for environmental
claims were $190 million and $179 million, net of reinsurance
recoverables of $43 million and $43 million, as of September 30,
2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.  Approximately 59% and
57% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of
September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, were for
incurred but not reported estimated losses.

"Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Further, insurers and
claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are
increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of
reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses.
Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in
confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited
precedential or predictive value further complicating management's
ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and
environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not
likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs
may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting
in material changes in loss reserves. In addition, while the
Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases
have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental,
and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements
may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent
of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors described
above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a
meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that
may be required."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Still Defends 840 Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately 840 active
asbestos cases involving approximately 3,335 plaintiffs as of
September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "As of September 30, 2016, U. S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 840 active cases involving
approximately 3,335 plaintiffs.  The vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants.  At December 31, 2015, U. S. Steel
was a defendant in approximately 820 active cases involving
approximately 3,315 plaintiffs.  About 2,500, or approximately 76
percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it
believes the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert
claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the
total number of plaintiffs. During the nine months ended September
30, 2016, dismissals, settlements and other dispositions resolved
approximately 180 cases, and new case filings added approximately
200 cases. During 2015, settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 415 cases, and new case filings added
approximately 275 cases.

"The following table shows the number of asbestos claims in the
current period and the prior three years:

Period ended       Opening     Claims        New      Closing
                   Number      Dismissed,    Claims   Number
                   of Claims   Settled                of Claims
                               and Resolved

December 31, 2013   3,330      250           240      3,320
December 31, 2014   3,320      190           325      3,455
December 31, 2015   3,455      415           275      3,315
September 30, 2016  3,315      180           200      3,335

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U. S. Steel fall
into three major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly
were exposed to asbestos on the premises of U. S. Steel
facilities; (2) claims made by persons allegedly exposed to
products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3) claims made under
certain federal and maritime laws by employees of former
operations of U. S. Steel.

"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S.
Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1)
the rates at which new claims are filed; (2) the number of and
effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending
asbestos claims; (3) uncertainties associated with the variations
in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim; and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells steel products,
including flat-rolled and tubular products, in North America and
Central Europe. Operations in North America also include iron ore
and coke production facilities, railroad services and real estate
operations. Operations in Europe also include coke production
facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Adjusts Liability by $23 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp. recorded $23 million adjustment to
its estimated asbestos liability during the three months ended
September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "Holders of the substantial majority of pre-
petition claims against the Debtors were required to file proofs
of claims by the bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. A
bar date is the date by which certain claims against the Debtors
must be filed if the claimants wish to receive any distribution in
the Chapter 11 Cases. The Bankruptcy Court established a bar date
of October 27, 2014 for the substantial majority of claims. In
addition, in July 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
establishing December 14, 2015 as the bar date for certain
asbestos claims that arose or are deemed to have arisen before the
Petition Date, except for certain specifically exempt claims.

"Since the Petition Date and prior to the applicable bar dates
(which have expired), the Debtors received approximately 41,300
filed pre-petition claims, including approximately 30,900 in filed
asbestos claims. We have substantially completed the process of
reconciling all non-asbestos claims that were filed and have
recorded such claims at the expected allowed amount. As of
November 1, 2016, approximately 5,700 of those claims have been
settled, withdrawn or expunged. We continue to work with creditors
regarding unsettled claims to determine the ultimate amount of the
allowed claims. Differences between those final allowed claims and
the liabilities recorded in the condensed consolidated balance
sheets will be recognized as reorganization items in our condensed
statements of consolidated income (loss) as they are resolved. The
resolution of such claims could result in material adjustments to
our financial statements.

"In September and October 2016, the Debtors filed with the
Bankruptcy Court reports developed by independent experts that
provide analysis and estimation of potential liabilities
associated with asbestos-related claims. In connection with
developing those reports, we recorded an adjustment to our
estimated liability associated with those claims during the three
months ended September 30, 2016 [of $23 million]. That estimated
liability is subject to revisions, which may be material, as
further information arises."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Oct1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc., continues to
face several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to U.S.
Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 1, 2016.

The Company states: "A wholly-owned subsidiary of to U.S. Auto
Parts Network, Inc., Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts,
Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group,
Inc. (WAG), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving
claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the
late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed
certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 60 Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. has 60 asbestos cases pending as
of September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "The Company has been, and continues to be,
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death
due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in
manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in
Texas and Illinois. There were 60 asbestos cases pending as of
September 30, 2016.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency (i.e., as to
product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) to claims
filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability
has been accrued."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Pays $300K to AMEC
------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., paid $0.3 million to AMEC, plc,
to settle their dispute over the assumption of the defense of
asbestos cases arising from products made by a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings received
a letter demand from AMEC, plc, which alleges to be the successor
entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard &
Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet
Rocketdyne to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases,
involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement
of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC
asserted that Aerojet Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when
it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the
purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the
purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to
the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard &
Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet
Rocketdyne agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed
liabilities that are asserted against it. On April 29, 2016, the
parties reached a settlement in principle. The parties executed a
settlement agreement, effective August 29, 2016, pursuant to which
Aerojet Rocketdyne made a payment of $0.3 million to AMEC and the
case was dismissed in its entirety."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 2,540 Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Individual asbestos litigations against 3M Company in relation to
the use by plaintiffs of mask and respirator products made by the
Company is 2,540, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "As of September 30, 2016, the Company is a
named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits
in various courts that purport to represent approximately 2,540
individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,130 individual
claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2015.

"The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust, or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all eleven cases taken to
trial, including nine of the ten cases tried to verdict (such
trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2015, and
2016-described below), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the
2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The remaining case,
tried in 2009, was dismissed by the court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict. The plaintiff in the 2015 trial filed an appeal to the
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District. In June 2016,
the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment
and jury verdict in favor of 3M - a decision that is final as the
plaintiff did not file an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. In
August 2016, 3M received a unanimous defense verdict from a jury
in state court in Kentucky, in 3M's first respirator trial
involving coal mine dust. The estate of the plaintiff alleged that
the 3M 8710 respirator is defective and caused his death because
it did not protect him from harmful coal mine dust. The jury
rejected plaintiff's claim and returned a verdict finding no
liability against 3M.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.

"The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. The case was inactive from the
fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013, other than a case
management conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State
filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability
and damages proceedings. At the hearing on the motion, the court
declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liability has been recorded
for this matter because the Company believes that liability is not
probable and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is
not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the
lack of any meaningful discovery responses by the State of West
Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact
that the complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers
where a defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of
joint and several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a
jury might allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately
tried.

"Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities and Insurance Receivables:
The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate
of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not
limited to, significant changes in (i) the number of future
claims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal
costs of defending these claims and in maintaining trial
readiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and
procedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial
viability of other co-defendants and insurers.

"As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of persons
who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other
malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the first nine
months of 2016 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $43
million, $14 million of which occurred in the third quarter of
2016. In the first nine months of 2016, the Company made payments
for legal fees and settlements of $45 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation, $19 million of which occurred
in the third quarter of 2016. As of September 30, 2016, the
Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of
$142 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual represents
the low end in a range of loss.

"The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range
of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the
Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company
considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several
possible developments described above that may occur that could
affect the Company's estimate of liabilities.

"As of September 30, 2016, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$4 million. As a result of a final arbitration decision in June
2016 regarding insurance coverage under two policies, 3M reversed
its receivable for insurance recoveries related to respirator
mask/asbestos litigation by $35 million. The Company is seeking
coverage under the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once
those claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have
collected substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims.

   Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation -- Aearo Technologies

"On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of September 30, 2016, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

"As of September 30, 2016, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of $19 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal
costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently
shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American
Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated
among the parties based on the number of years each company sold
respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the
AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged
years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of
the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement
entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This
agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a
quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability
claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products
for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the
difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains
in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have
applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica
products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in
place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged
to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997.
To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters.

"In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed
a lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment on
two claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specific
liability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot's
claim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly caused
by exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, the
parties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016,
the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues,
and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible for
all liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995
agreement. Cabot has appealed with a decision expected in 2017.

"Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits,
and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the
contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of
liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact
of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's
share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of
the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount
of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be
significantly larger than the amount accrued.

"Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 3,753 PI Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,753 personal injury
claims for asbestos exposure as of September 30, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

"We were defending 3,753 claims as of September 30, 2016.

"The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the
number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the
aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:

Year        Opening   Claims      New     Closing    Amounts Paid
ended       Number    Dismissed,  Claims  Number of  thousands)
Dec. 31    of Claims  Settled,            Claims     to Settle
   or Resolved           or Resolve
2005     29,411      6,257      1,297   24,451      $504
2006     24,451      6,841    1,806 19,416   3,879
2007     19,416 808      190   18,798    15
2008     18,798     523      110 18,385        52
2009     18,385     9,482       42 8,945    88
2010 8,945     3,963        188    5,170   159
2011 5,170 789       65    4,446 1,111
2012 4,446  90      107    4,463   530
2013 4,463   230       66    4,299    78
2014 4,299 625      147   3,821   437
2015 3,821 116       86 3,791   164

As of
Sept. 30,
2016 3,791   127 89 3,753  $733

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

"Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of September 30, 2016
we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,468
claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $10.1 million.
Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although the coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,707 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary of Albany International Corp., was defending
against 7,707 claims as of September 30, 2016, according to
Albany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Brandon is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases
in which Albany is named as a defendant.

The following table sets forth the number of claims filed, the
number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the
aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented:

Year        Opening   Claims      New     Closing    Amounts Paid
ended       Number    Dismissed,  Claims  Number of  thousands)
Dec. 31    of Claims  Settled,            Claims     to Settle
   or Resolved           or Resolve
2005 9,985    642     223 9,566 $-
2006 9,566 1,182     730 9,114 -
2007 9,114  462 88 8,740 -
2008 8,740   86 10 8,664 -
2009 8,664  760 3 7,907 -
2010 7,907   47 9 7,869 -
2011 7,869    3 11 7,877 -
2012 7,877   12 2 7,867   -
2013 7,867   55 3 7,815   -
2014 7,815   87 2 7,730 -
2015 7,730   18   1 7,713   -

As of
Sept. 30,
2016 7,713      6   - 7,707   $-

The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.
Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made
by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer
fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none
of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not
manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not
believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of September 30,
2016, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
9,899 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance
carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8%
of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

"For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as
the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon
claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be
made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these
remaining claims.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills. We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in
1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-
containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many
years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually
obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising
out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by
Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.
Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount
Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we
have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions."



                            *********

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  * * *