CAR_Public/161118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 231




                            Headlines

1220 MANAGEMENT GROUP: "Osorio" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
ACME DELIVERY: "Rager" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
AIU ONLINE: Hodge Moves to Certify Class and Subclass Under TCPA
ALASKA: High Court Tosses Breach of Contract Claims in PERS Case
AM (2015) LLC: Status Hearing in "Zeidel" Suit Reset to Dec. 15

AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Asks Court to Deny Sanchez's Bid to Certify
CBE GROUP: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
DALLAS, TX: Faces Class Action Over Bus Camera Violations
DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Wins Prelim. OK to Settle "Corona" Class Suit

DAVID'S BURRITO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Hearing in "Gingerich" Suit Set for Nov. 28
DL POOL SERVICE: Court Orders Compagnone to Revise Class Notice
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Court Denies McKinnon's Bid to Certify Class
EAGLE MARINE: Seeks to Certify "O'Neal" Suit as Collective Action

FELT & LUKES: Certification of Class Sought in "Bentley" Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Class of Route Drivers Certified in "Neff" Suit
FORT ZUMWALT: Certification of Class Sought in Videotaping Suit
GRAPER LAW: Jahr Moves for Certification of Class Under Damasco
GUARDIAN HEATING: Muir Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA

HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Bonuses
KING LIVE POULTRY: "Nunez" Sues Over Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
LEAL MEDICAL: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
LIFESTATION INC: Dolemba Seeks to Certify TCPA and ICFA Classes

LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Wants More Filings in "Chua" Class Suit
LOUISIANA, USA: Davis Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
MAGNUSON HOTELS: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Sperber" Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Parties Move to Settle "Fequiere" Suit

NANOOSH MADISON: "Varela" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage
PHH CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in CFPB RESPA Case
PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Criddell Seeks Certification of Three Classes
PRIORITY ENERGY: Court Grants Matthews' Bid to Certify Class
PRODUCTION TESTING: Class of Operators Certified in "Brown" Suit

Q CLUB HOTEL: Dear Wants to Certify Residential Unit Owners Class
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Rivera Seeks Certification of Class
RHD JR INC: Mechanics Class Certification Sought in "Jordan" Suit
ROMERO BROTHERS: "Rodriguez" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Schmidt" Sues Over Defective Smartphone

SANTA FE, TX: Cert. of Class and Subclass Sought in "West" Suit
SAW ENTERTAINMENT: Hughes Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
SCHNEIDER PUBLISHING: Gorss Moves for Certification of Class
SPEEDPAY INC: Ct. Orders Pincus to File Redacted Motion to Certify
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Feb. 6 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set

TAYLOR SMITH: Law Seeks Certification of Driver Helpers Class
TAYLOR SMITH: Ntuk Seeks to Certify Class of Onsite Supervisors
TWIN RIVERS: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Minor" Suit
UGL: Class Action Over Ichthys LNG Project Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Tea Party Group Gets Favorable Ruling in IRS Case

VERIZON INC: Says FCC Must Not Prohibit Arbitration Clauses
VIRGIN AMERICA: Class of Attendants Certified in "Bernstein" Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Defeat Device Software Discovered in Audi Models
YASSER AWAAD: Faces Class Action Over False Epilepsy Diagnoses
ZEEKREWARDS: Seeks Court Approval of Claims Filing Documentation

* California Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Not Business-Friendly
* CPSC May Need to Review Product Safety Inspection Practices
* DOL's New Overtime Rule to Impact Companies, Non-Profits
* Federal Agencies Avoid Use of Formal Class Action Procedures
* New Jersey's Consumer Contract Statute to Impact Businesses

* Obama's BICE Rule to Impact Investors and Investment Advisers
* SCOTUS Set to Tackle Issues on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Attys OK'd Pro Hac Vice Practice in "Waugh"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until May to Perfect Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Junked as Defendant in "Johnson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Attys OK'd Pro Hac Vice Practice in "Hanson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Allowance of Appeal in "Campbell" Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Present in 344 Kent Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over Half of Liverpool Schools May Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk in Seaman Hard to Quantify
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Hopes for New Day With New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards EUR200,000 to Heirs of Worker

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found During Stratford Highway Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Corkman Pub Rubble
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Fined $21,600 for Asbestos Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Senator Diagnosed With Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Lodged For Asbestos Disease Pay Down

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Sydney Harbour Bridge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Cayuga Centers for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Brisbane Dam
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Steps Closer to Justice After Record Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Defense May Work in Asbestos Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kin of Asbestosis Victims Denied Relief
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell, Ford May Access Rule 2019 Exhibits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 36,450 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Awaits Ruling in "Nelson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $6.6MM Judgment in "Dummitt"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $0.2MM Judgment in "Suttner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Heard Oral Arguments in "Amato"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Award in "Peraica" Cut to $4.25MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. May Pursue Further Appeal in "Sweberg"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals $10.8MM Judgment in "Poage"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Brings "Rabovsky" to Third Circuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Brings "Coulbourn" to Ninth Circuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Recorded $487MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Pays Cricket-Linked Waste Disposal Penalty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Faces 34,400 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 570 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 322 Asbestos Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Vertex Unit Remains Pending at Sept. 30


                            *********


1220 MANAGEMENT GROUP: "Osorio" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Osorio, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. 1220 Management Group, LLC d/b/a Bodega Taqueria y Tequila,
Justin Levine and Keith Menin, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24617
(S.D. Fla., November 4, 2016), seeks actual damages for unpaid
wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
forty weekly, double damages and liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and further
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

1220 Management Group, LLC operates as Bodega Taqueria y Tequila,
a food truck owned by Justin Levine and Keith Menin where the
Plaintiff worked. Osorio claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ACME DELIVERY: "Rager" Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Weldon Rager, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Acme Delivery, Inc. and Albert
R. Dellinger, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03635 (D. Md., November
4, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Section 16(b)
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated and Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Acme Delivery Inc., is a courier service company, located in
Baltimore, Maryland, transporting primarily dental supplies
throughout the State of Maryland and Washington D.C. Defendants
hired Plaintiff to work as a delivery driver/dispatcher. Rager
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
      Fax No.: (410) 244-8454
      Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


AIU ONLINE: Hodge Moves to Certify Class and Subclass Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary A. Hodge asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth
in her complaint in the lawsuit entitled Mary A. Hodge
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIU
Online, LLC, an Illinois Corporation, and Career Education Corp. a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-10383 (N.D. Ill.), may
proceed on behalf of these class and subclass:

     Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) who
     Defendants or some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called
     on their cell phone (4) using the same system that called
     Plaintiff (5) where the recipient did not give prior express
     written consent to Defendants to receive automated marketing
     calls (6) in the period between four years prior to the
     filing of this action and the date of judgment.

     Subclass: (1) All persons in the United States (2) who
     Defendants or some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called
     on their cell phone (4) using the same system that called
     Plaintiff (5) after the recipient requested Defendants not
     to call (6) in the period between four years prior to the
     filing of this action and the date of judgment.

The lawsuit is brought against AIU Online and CEC for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Hodge also asks the Court to name her as class representative,
to appoint her lawyers as counsel for the classes, and allow her
to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after further class
discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=suk4gz9g

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Donald Sawyer, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


ALASKA: High Court Tosses Breach of Contract Claims in PERS Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Tuten, writing for Alaska Commons, reports that with a
decision on Nov. 4, the Alaska Supreme Court at least temporarily
left the door open for up to 85,000 former participants in the
State's Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) who may want to
reenter PERS and restore their benefits.

Peter Metcalfe, a former building maintenance worker, was hired in
1972.  Mr. Metcalfe cashed out his PERS contributions in 1981, but
under state law, he could have restored his PERS status by paying
back his contributions plus interest.

Over the succeeding 24 years, the State gradually reduced PERS
benefits for new hires, creating separate benefit tiers.

Finally, after errors by Mercer Consulting helped create an
unfunded liability in the public retirement system of $5.7
billion, the legislature passed SB 141 during a 2005 special
session with encouragement from then-Gov. Frank Murkowski.  The
bill eliminated the pension-style defined benefit retirement plan,
replacing it with a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan under
Tier IV.

SB 141 also repealed the statute allowing former PERS participants
to buy back into PERS, though there was a five-year grace period.
The State sent a letter to former participants advising them that
their window to return to PERS would close on July 1, 2010.

When Mr. Metcalfe asked about his PERS status in 2012, the State
told him he could not return to Tier I status.

Mr. Metcalfe filed a class action suit based on Article XII
section 7 of the Alaska Constitution, which reads, "Membership in
employee retirement systems of the State or its political
subdivisions shall constitute a contractual relationship. Accrued
benefits of these systems shall not be diminished or impaired."

By denying him the option to buy back into PERS under the statute
as it existed when he was hired, Mr. Metcalfe argued, the State
was diminishing the value of his lifetime contractual retirement
benefits under Article XII section 7.

"If the State makes a deal that lasts the lifetime of a public
employee, the State doesn't get to argue later, 'Well, I really
regret making that deal.  It's too expensive,'" Metcalfe's
attorney Jon Choate said during oral arguments, as reported by the
Juneau Empire.  "Changing health care costs are a significant
concern, but they don't trump constitutional protection."

But Superior Court Judge Trevor Stephens agreed with the State
that Mr. Metcalfe's claim was barred by a three-year statute of
limitations that took effect when the legislature passed SB 141 in
2005.  Mr. Metcalfe, who filed suit in June of 2013, had argued
that the clock started when the bill took full effect and his buy
back option was actually repealed on July 1, 2010.

The Alaska Supreme Court rejected Mr. Metcalfe's claim for breach
of contract damages on Nov. 4, concluding that a proper remedy,
consistent with its decision in McMullen v Bell, would be to
provide a choice between remaining outside PERS or keeping the
available benefits.

Judge Stephens' decision on the statute of limitations was in
error, the Court ruled, because the doctrine of laches --
excessive delay in seeking legal remedy -- would be the relevant
time limitation based on the type of relief Mr. Metcalfe is
seeking.  And even laches is inapplicable because Mr. Metcalfe's
claim is "prospective in nature and seeks to challenge future
enforcement of a statute as constitutionally infirm."

Yet the Court agreed with Stephens that Mr. Metcalfe does not have
to return to State employment or rejoin PERS at a lower tier
before the courts can reach a decision in his case.

In Brause v State, Department of Health & Social Services, the
Court noted, "The ripeness doctrine requires a plaintiff to claim
that either a legal injury has been suffered or that one will be
suffered in the future." [emphasis added]

"Although we have rejected his claim of monetary injury, Metcalfe
nonetheless has raised a claim that his asserted PERS rights have
been wrongfully diminished, and he has demonstrated a need for
decision: As the superior court recognized, Metcalfe and others in
his position need to know their PERS status to make decisions
about pursuing employment opportunities with the State," Justice
Daniel Winfree wrote on Nov. 4.

Justices Craig Stowers and Joel Bolger did not participate in the
case, prompting the Court to avoid a decision on whether
Mr. Metcalfe has a vested right in PERS, instead remanding the
case to the superior court.

"At the point where a former employee has withdrawn his
contributions, the State and that former member have gone their
separate ways," Assistant Attorney General Kevin Wakley said
during oral arguments.  "That contract, as far as the obligations
of each side, has been fulfilled."

Then-Chief Justice Dana Fabe agreed with Mr. Wakley.  In a
concurring opinion, Justice Fabe noted that Article XII section 7
refers to "membership" in retirement systems, but the statutory
definition of a "former member" is one who has "received a total
refund of the balance of the employee contribution account."  Even
in 1981, when Mr. Metcalfe cashed out his PERS account, statute
said the term "member . . . does not include former members."

Justice Fabe, who has since retired, replaced by Justice Stowers
as Chief Justice, concluded Mr. Metcalfe had no claim for relief
under Article XII section 7 and the case should therefore not be
remanded.

Under Alaska's Rules of Appellate Procedure, any two-to-one
decision does not have precedential effect.

Since the class that Mr. Metcalfe seeks to represent -- all former
PERS members -- has not been certified, the Court worried that a
split would resolve Mr. Metcalfe's claim, but leave future Courts
the option to rule inconsistently for similarly-situated
plaintiffs.

The superior court now must collect more information to determine
whether Mr. Metcalfe, and potentially the other 85,000 former PERS
members who could join his suit, has a vested reinstatement right
to PERS at his previous tier.


AM (2015) LLC: Status Hearing in "Zeidel" Suit Reset to Dec. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 3, 2016, in the case
styled Freida Zeidel, et al. v. AM (2015) LLC, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-06989 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Daniel G. Martin.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendant's
      second motion for summary judgment are under advisement
      before the District Court; and

   -- Status hearing set for November 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., is
      stricken and reset to December 15, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

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


AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Carlos Morales, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, LLC, Peach,
Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16832863
(Cal. Sup., September 27, 2016), was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2016.

Amazon.com LLC was founded in 1994 and is based in Hebron,
Kentucky. Amazon.com LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com
Inc.

Plaintiff, a delivery driver working jointly for the Defendants,
claims unpaid overtime under California Labor Laws.

The Defendant is represented by:

      John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
      Tel: (213) 612-2500
      Fax: (213) 612-2501
      Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Banks, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      One Market, Spear Street Tower
      San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
      Tel: (415) 442-1000
      Fax: (415) 442-1001
      Email: christopher.banks@morganlewis.com

             - and -

      Marina C. Gruber, Esq.
      marina.gruber@morganlewis.com
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1400 Page Mill Road
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
      Tel: (650) 843-4000
      Fax: (650) 843-4001


CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Asks Court to Deny Sanchez's Bid to Certify
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit entitled LILLIANA SANCHEZ, YOLANDA
CAMEY, JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CAPITAL CONTRACTORS INC., a New York
Corporation, dba CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC., Case
No. 3:14-cv-02622-MMC (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to deny the
Plaintiffs' motion class certification.

Lilliana Sanchez, Yolanda Camey and Juan Carlos Ramirez are all
current and former owners and operators of janitorial services
business entities, and it was their businesses -- not themselves
as individuals -- that formerly contracted with Capital in a
legitimate, arm's-length contractor/subcontractor relationship,
the Defendant tells the Court.

Notwithstanding this undisputed fact, the Defendant argues, the
Plaintiffs bring, in their individual capacities, various claims
against Capital for alleged wage and hour violations including
unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and minimum wages, among
others -- all based on a theory that they were somehow Capital
employees.  The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs attempt to
bring these claims as a class action, seeking to represent over
200 other business owners whose companies also contracted with
Capital throughout the state of California since April 25, 2010.

The Defendant argues that certification of the proposed class is
improper because the named Plaintiffs do not have valid individual
claims, their personal interests conflict with existing members of
the putative class, and their character and credibility will
become a focus at trial, eroding the interests of other putative
class members.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 16, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X20ck7lk

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Ward, Esq.
          Krista M. Cabrera, Esq.
          Archana R. Acharya, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411
          Telephone: (213) 972-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
          E-mail: cward@foley.com
                  kcabrera@foley.com
                  aacharya@foley.com

               - and -

          Kamran Mirrafati, Esq.
          Yesenia Garcia Perez, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1520
          Telephone: (415) 434-4484
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4507
          E-mail: kmirrafati@foley.com
                  ygarciaperez@foley.com


CBE GROUP: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helene Olbinski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit entitled HELENE OLBINSKI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE CBE GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01475-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks the Court to both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff
(and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are 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


DALLAS, TX: Faces Class Action Over Bus Camera Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Stengle, writing for Claims Journal, reports that a lawsuit
claims two Texas cities are illegally using cameras to ticket
drivers accused of ignoring stop signs that extend from school
buses as students get on and off the vehicles, arguing that among
other issues, the state Legislature hasn't authorized cities to
take such action.

"To me, it's just beyond belief that cities would plunge down this
path and spend the taxpayers' money on these systems -- and these
systems are very expensive -- with so many red flags along the
way," said LeDouglas Johnson, the attorney who recently filed the
lawsuit in October in Dallas County.

Noting that state law already makes ignoring a school bus stop
sign a criminal offense, the lawsuit argues that Dallas and
Carrollton "took conduct that is a crime" and "devised a civil
penalty in an attempt to transform it into a civil matter."

The lawsuit says local authorities can't enact an ordinance that
conflicts with state law without authorization, and adds that the
ordinances violate rights guaranteed in the Texas Constitution.
However, some attorneys say such ordinances don't conflict with
state law and guarantees of such constitutional rights don't apply
to civil penalties.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five motorists and asks for
class-action status on behalf of all those who have gotten the
$300 tickets since Dallas and Carrollton enacted their ordinances
in 2012 and 2014, respectively.  The lawsuit was filed against the
two cities and Dallas County Schools, which is the governmental
entity that operates the ticket programs in those cities and 13
others across Texas.

About 110,000 tickets have been issued in Dallas and Carrollton
resulting in about $29 million in fines, according to Dallas
County Schools.

Mr. Johnson said a ruling in his clients' favor could cause other
Texas cities to abandon such programs for fear of being sued.

The lawsuit says that since 2007, four bills proposed in the
Legislature seeking to give local authorities authorization to
issue civil penalties for such violations didn't pass.  State law
makes passing a school bus with its stop sign extended a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $500 to $1,250.

Mick McKamie, a city attorney for Amarillo and Alpine, neither of
which have such ordinances, said state law doesn't prohibit cities
from issuing such civil penalties.  He says the plaintiffs will
have "a big hill to climb" in their argument that there's a
conflict.

The lawsuit also says the ordinances violate various
constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial and the
right against self-incrimination by presuming the registered owner
was driving.  But Mr. McKamie said there's no guarantee of a jury
trial related to civil proceedings and that the right of self-
incrimination only applies to criminal matters where jail is
possible.

Melissa Hamilton, a visiting criminal law scholar at the
University of Houston Law Center, said the lawsuit tries to argue
that the violations are "civil in name only."

"They'll have to convince the judge that a civil violation is akin
to criminal, but it's really not," she said.

But attorney Russell Bowman sees merit in the lawsuit.  A judge
ruled in his favor this summer in a lawsuit over a red light
camera ticket he'd received from the Dallas suburb of Richardson.
And Mr. Bowman notes that Johnson's lawsuit alleges the same
constitutional violations that he did.

"Those ordinances (regarding school bus camera tickets) have the
same constitutional problems as what was involved in my case and
then it's got the even bigger problem that there's no state law
that would even allow the city to do that," Bowman said.

The judge found Bowman wasn't liable for the ticket and ordered
Richardson to pay him $27,500 in legal fees.  The city is
appealing.

Dallas County Schools board president Larry Duncan said he
couldn't comment on the pending litigation.  But he said the
school bus ticket programs improve safety, noting that from the
first year to the third of Dallas' program, violations decreased
by 37 percent.

Carrollton officials declined comment, saying they hadn't been
served with the lawsuit. Dallas officials didn't respond to a
request for comment.

Charlie Hood, executive director of the National Association of
State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, said the tickets
are among the tools that help prevent school bus stop sign
violations. He said another is training bus drivers to stop in a
way that they're less likely to be illegally passed.

It's a complex issue, though, Mr.Hood said.  The "main message" is
that such tickets "have value but there's way more to it than
that," he said.


DAMGAARD LANDSCAPE: Wins Prelim. OK to Settle "Corona" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 3, 2016, in the case
titled Oscar Corona, et al. v. Damgaard Landscape Management, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00819 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Parties' agreed motion for preliminary approval of the
      parties' joint stipulation and agreement to settle class
      action claims and for approval of class certification is
      granted; and

   -- Fairness hearing is set for March 28, 2017, at 11:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DIioV2xe


DAVID'S BURRITO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rodriguez and Alfredo Gonzalez Trejo, individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
David's Burrito Express LLC, and David Rodriguez, individually,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10349 (N.D. Ill., November 4, 2016),
seeks overtime wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of this action and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant, David's Burrito Express, located
at 870 N Roselle Rd, Hoffman Estates, Illinois where the
Plaintiffs worked. They claim to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Direct: 312-878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Hearing in "Gingerich" Suit Set for Nov. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 7, 2016, in the case
titled Rachel Gingerich v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-10226 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing is set for November 28, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;
      and

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued until November 28, 2016.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YF1vzucV


DL POOL SERVICE: Court Orders Compagnone to Revise Class Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John E. Steele entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit entitled BRITTANY COMPAGNONE, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. DL POOL SERVICE, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00647-UA-MRM (M.D.
Fla.), relating to the Plaintiff's motion for an order permitting
supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs and conditional
certification as a collective action.

The Court granted the Motion to the extent that the case is
conditionally certified as a collective action, but the request to
permit notice is denied without prejudice pending the Court's
review of a revised proposed notice to be filed by the Plaintiff
on or before November 21, 2016.  The Defendant will file any
objections to the revised proposed notice by December 1, 2016.

Plaintiff Brittany Compagnone has filed a one-count Amended
Complaint against her former employer, DL Pool Service, LLC, on
her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, for overtime compensation relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  In the Motion, she seeks to facilitate notice to
all current and former service technicians, who worked for the
Defendant any time within the last three years, and who were
subjected to Defendant's illegal practice of not paying full and
proper overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=84x8lq7G


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Court Denies McKinnon's Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
allow Roger Tien and Jaime Gavilan Cabello to intervene
permissively in the litigation, and the Plaintiffs' motion to file
a fifth amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA
MCKINNON, ET AL. v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., ET AL.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Court denies with prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denies as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude
the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Donald Lichtenstein.

The gravamen of the case concerns the Defendants' alleged practice
of selling collision or liability damage waiver policies
("LDW") in connection with vehicle rentals to the Plaintiffs
without providing adequate notice (through signage, oral
statements, and otherwise) that the coverage might be duplicative
of other policies (e.g., through auto insurance or credit card
protection plans) already held by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs
has sought to certify this class:

     All persons who reside in the United States who, since
     January 1, 2009, obtained a rental car from a Dollar or
     Thrifty rental car location operated by defendants at one of
     the following locations in the State of California: Los
     Angeles International Airport, Lindbergh Field (San Diego)
     International Airport, or John Wayne (Orange County)
     International Airport, where the location failed to post
     signage regarding Loss Damage Waiver ("LDW") in the manner
     required by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1936(g)(1), and who were
     charged for LDW, excluding those who (a) were part of a
     pre-paid tour reservation or approved LDW as part of a
     membership program; (b) made a claim and received full
     coverage under LDW; and (c) received a full refund.

The Court sets a case management conference for December 12, 2016,
at 2:00 p.m.  The Court also rules that by December 5, 2016, the
parties will file a case management statement consistent with the
requirements of the Local Rules and the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases.  This Order terminates Docket Numbers 168, 169, and
188.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o0hMJ974


EAGLE MARINE: Seeks to Certify "O'Neal" Suit as Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties jointly ask the Court to conditionally certify the
case entitled IVAN O'NEAL, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons v. EAGLE MARINE CONTRACTING, LLC, d/b/a
EM CONTRACTING and d/b/a EM CONTRACTING, LLC, RAPHAEL G.
BURCHFIELD, Case No. 1:16-cv-00401-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), as a
collective action and approve notice to the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Ivan O'Neal filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and
similarly situated persons on August 1, 2016, claiming that he and
similarly situated employees were not properly paid under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, Mr. O'Neal and others were
paid a "per diem" in addition to hourly wages.  The per diem was
not included in the calculation of employees' regular rate for
overtime purposes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j9F4kY6f

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL PARKS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1924
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Telephone: (251) 338-0949
          E-mail: idr@rosenthalparks.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arnold W. Umbach III, Esq.
          Breanna H. Young, Esq.
          STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
          100 Brookwood Place, Seventh Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 868-6000
          E-mail: tumbach@starneslaw.com
                  byoung@starneslaw.com


FELT & LUKES: Certification of Class Sought in "Bentley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Bentley and Candace Bentley move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled CURTIS
BENTLEY and CANDACE BENTLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. FELT & LUKES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01476-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs
(and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs contend, 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
Plaintiffs say.  The Plaintiffs assert that they are 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 Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representative
and further ask 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=t4IMZUaa

The Plaintiffs are 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


FLOWERS FOODS: Class of Route Drivers Certified in "Neff" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford grants in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification filed in the lawsuit
captioned NICK NEFF and MATTHEW McCREA, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.,
LEPAGE BAKERIES, PARK STREET, LLC, and CK SALES CO., LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-00254-gwc (D. Vt.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying their
bakery distributor drivers as independent contractors, thus,
depriving them of overtime pay due under the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs
seek conditional certification of a class of plaintiffs under the
FLSA, which authorizes collective enforcement of FLSA violations.
The proposed class consists of distributors (commonly known as
"route drivers" in the bakery business).

The Motion is granted in part, regarding the Distributors employed
in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, and New York, and denied with respect to Distributors in
Maine, who are already subject to a similar lawsuit brought by the
same counsel.

The Court concludes that for purposes of conditional
certification, all Distributors, who have contracted with CK Sales
should receive notice.  The exception is Distributors working in
Maine because these individuals are already the subject of an
identical action, filed by the same attorneys, seeking overtime
pay for CK Sales distributors in Maine.

"There is no good reason for sending overlapping notices inviting
the same people to join two lawsuits.  With respect to
distributors in the other states, however, the common feature of
their employment relationship is that they signed contracts with
the same company for the same type of work and that CK Sales
relies upon the same provisions in these contracts in denying them
overtime pay," Judge Crawford opined.

Judge Crawford also approves the form of notice supplied by the
Plaintiffs as well as the posting of a placard at each warehouse.
Judge Crawford ordered the Defendants to post copies of the Notice
at each warehouse location where Distributors pick up bakery
products for delivery.

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


FORT ZUMWALT: Certification of Class Sought in Videotaping Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE, as Next Friend of
JAMES DOE v. MATTHEW HANSEN, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00546-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), and certain district defendants jointly ask that the
Court enter an order certifying class in this matter for the
purpose of determining potential liability only.

The District Defendants are Superintendent Dr. Bernard DuBray,
former Assistant Superintendent Mike Clemens, former Assistant
Superintendent Patty Corum, Assistant Superintendent Jackie Floyd,
Greg Solomon, Nelda Wetzel, Jill Hutchenson, Unknown John and Jane
Doe Defendants employed as principals or principal designees, Dan
Hadfield and Unknown John and Jane Doe Defendants employed as
fifth grade teachers.

The Parties agree that the class will be defined as the 78 current
and former students of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, who
attended the School District's summer camp at Cuivre River State
Park between 2007 and 2011, and who allegedly were unknowingly
videotaped in the nude by Defendant Matthew Hansen.

Plaintiff John Doe is appointed as the Class representative by the
Parties.  They also agree that the Class claims will be those as
set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, and the issues and
defenses will be those set forth in the Second Amended Complaint
and the Answer filed by the Defendants to the Second Amended
Complaint.

The Parties also ask the Court to appoint Larry A. Bagsby, Esq.,
of The Bagsby Law Firm, and Deborah Alessi, Esq., of Shea, Kohl &
Alessi, as class counsel for the Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=75OzcU0N

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Bagsby, Esq.
          THE BAGSBY LAW FIRM
          125 North Main Street, Suite 204
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 244-5595
          Facsimile: (636) 244-5596
          E-mail: larrybagsby@aol.com

               - and -

          Deborah J. Alessi, Esq.
          SHEA, KOHL, ALESSI, & KUHL, L.C.
          400 North Fifth Street, Suite 200
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 946-9999
          Facsimile: (636) 946-8623
          E-mail: dalessi@skaklaw.com

District Defendants Dr. Bernard Dubray, Mike Clemens, Patty Corum,
Jackie Floyd, Greg Solomon, Nelda Wetzel, Jill Hutchenson, Unknown
John and Jane Doe Defendants, and Dan Hadfield are represented by:

          Celynda L. Brasher, Esq.
          Michael J. Curry, Esq.
          TUETH KEENEY COOPER MOHAN & JACKSTADT, P.C.
          34 N. Meramec, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 880-3600
          Facsimile: (314) 880-3601
          E-mail: cbrasher@tuethkeeney.com
                  mcurry@tuethkeeney.com


GRAPER LAW: Jahr Moves for Certification of Class Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled JOHN JAHR and KAREN JAHR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
GRAPER LAW OFFICES, LTD., Case No. 2:16-cv-01472-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.),
and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs assert, 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
Plaintiffs state.  The Plaintiffs assert that they are 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 Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representatives
and further ask 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=XJA5ZK3p

The Plaintiffs are 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


GUARDIAN HEATING: Muir Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Michael Muir And Bradley
Stock individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor
Standards Act v. Guardian Heating and Cooling Services, Inc. And
Robert (Bob) Lange and Andrea Lange as employers under the FLSA,
IMWL and IWPCA, Case No. 1:16-cv-09755 (N.D. Ill.), moves for
certification of a collective action, for disclosure of potential
opt-in plaintiffs' contact information and Court-approved notice.

Michael Muir and Bradley Stock also ask the Court to direct the
Defendants to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone
numbers, e-mail addresses and last date(s) of performance of all
potential putative class members who worked for the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


HONEYWELL SAFETY: McKnight Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Plaintiffs Barbara McKnight and Sheila Anderson
move the Court for an order granting conditional certification and
notice to be issued pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit is styled BARBARA MCKNIGHT and SHEILA ANDERSON,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated
v. HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC. AND HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. COTE, CARL JOHNSON, and MARK R.
JAMES, in their Official and Individual Capacities, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00132-ML-PAS (D.R.I.).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5UCgOdVO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louise A. Herman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUISE A. HERMAN
          321 South Main Street, Suite 300
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 277-4110
          Facsimile: (401) 453-0073
          E-mail: lherman@lhermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Amato A. DeLuca, Esq.
          DELUCA AND WEIZENBAUM, LTD.
          199 North Main Street
          Providence, RI 02905
          Telephone: (401) 354-7233
          Facsimile: (401) 453-1501
          E-mail: bud@delucaandweizenbaum.com


KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Bonuses
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Meals, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Keane Frac GP LLC, Keane Frac, LP and
Keane Group Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01674,
(N.Y. Sup., November 4, 2016), seeks overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well damages for failure to include bonuses into
employees' regular rate of pay in violation of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants constitute an oilfield services company that operates
throughout the United States including in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Texas, and North Dakota. Meals worked for them as a
Treater-in-Training from approximately April 2014 to November
2015.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
      8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
      Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
      Tel: (913) 766-5585
      Fax: (816) 875-5069
      Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


KING LIVE POULTRY: "Nunez" Sues Over Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Ruben Nunez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. King Live Poultry Inc., Doubao Live
Poultry Inc., Li Baoxi and Zheng Chang, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06124 (E.D. N.Y., November 4, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, spread of hours pay, applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs  pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws.

King Live Poultry is a poultry distributor with its main office
located at 39 St., Nicholas Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11237,
with Li Baoxi and Zheng Chang as owners/managers. Nunez work
included attending to customers, cleaning and maintaining the
store, cleaning cages, dressing chickens and opening the store. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEAL MEDICAL: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilberto Lino Morgan, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Leal Medical Center, LLC, ABC-ALSY
Adult Day Care Centers, LLC, Leal Pharmacy, LLC, Jhacnea P. Leal,
Yaima Delgado, Daniel Orozco, Henry Mullales, Sr., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-24621 (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2016), requests
damages and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, along
with fees, costs and interest, for unjust enrichment and violation
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants is a medical services group based in Homestead, FL
where Plaintiff worked. He claims to have been denied overtime pay
and well as reimbursement for the weekly fuel and toll
expenditures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIFESTATION INC: Dolemba Seeks to Certify TCPA and ICFA Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SCOTT DOLEMBA, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class defined below v. LIFESTATION, INC., and
DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-10348 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class
certification pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The Plaintiff seeks to
represent these classes:

   (1) With respect to Count I, alleging violation of the TCPA,
       plaintiff defines a class consisting of (a) all persons
       (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing
       of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), and on or before
       a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c)
       received calls from defendants on their cell phones, (d)
       placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or
       artificial voice; and

   (2) With respect to Count II, alleging violation of the ICFA,
       plaintiff defines a class consisting of (a) all persons
       with telephone numbers in Illinois area codes (b) who, on
       or after a date three years prior to the filing of this
       action (815 ILCS 505/10a), and on or before a date 20 days
       following the filing of this action, (c) received calls
       from defendants on their cell phones, (d) placed using an
       automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

Scott Dolemba further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Julie Clark, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Wants More Filings in "Chua" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a civil minutes filed in the lawsuit titled Charmaine Chua, et
al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. John A. Kronstadt stated the tentative views
that the Court is inclined to grant in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Judge Kronstadt directs the Plaintiffs to file a supplemental
brief, not to exceed five pages, which will address the issue of
whether the National Lawyers Guild has standing.  The Defendants
may also file a brief but it is not required.

The Motion is taken under submission and a ruling will be issued
upon review of the parties' submissions, according to the Civil
Minutes.

The Court confers with counsel regarding settlement.  The
Plaintiffs are open to participating in a settlement conference
now while defense counsel believes it is premature at this time.
The Court encourages counsel to work together in an effort to have
a meaningful settlement conference with Magistrate Judge
Standish.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kDNG8FP6


LOUISIANA, USA: Davis Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Davis, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned
Robert Davis, et al. v. Sandy McCain, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01534-DDD-JPM (E.D. La.), asks the Court to certify a class of
similarly situated persons, who suffered exposure to second-hand
smoke at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (RLCC), in
Cottonport, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R5TlWN65


MAGNUSON HOTELS: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC. a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. MAGNUSON HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, MAGNUSON HOTELS USA, LLC, Washington limited
liability companies, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:16-cv-01832 (D.
Conn.), moves for class certification.

Gorss Motels also asks the Court to take the Motion under
submission and deferring further activity on it until after the
discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
scheduling order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4zoZbiF2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Sperber" Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Sperber on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Midland Funding, LLC and Encore Capital Group, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06146 (E.D. N.Y., November 4, 2016), seeks
statutory damages provided under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Defendants are debt collectors tasked to collect a consumer debt
from the Plaintiff. Defendants, through its letters, imposed a
made up deadline to pay on the alleged debt. Plaintiff alleges
that these letters were deceptive and harassing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Parties Move to Settle "Fequiere" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MILSTEAD &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07541-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), jointly
move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a
class action and granting preliminary approval of the Parties'
class settlement agreement.  The Parties define the class as:

     All consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead &
     Associates, LLC mailed a written communication in the form
     of Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's Complaint during the period
     beginning October 15, 2014, and ending November 4, 2015
     where the letter stated in relevant part:

     "4. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act entitles you to
      dispute the debt, or any portion thereof, within thirty
      (30) days of your receipt of this letter. If you do not
      dispute the debt within that period, it will be presumed to
      be valid."

The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that Milstead violated the
FDCPA by mailing consumers initial collection letters, which
allegedly failed to provide required disclosure because the
initial collection letters omitted the term "by the debt
collector" or its equivalent from the disclosure as required.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean X. Kelly, Esq.
          MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
          Cherry Tree Corporate Center
          535 Route 38 East, Suite 501
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 663-4300
          E-mail: skelly@moodklaw.com


NANOOSH MADISON: "Varela" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Varela, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nanoosh Madison LLC, Nanoosh Rocks LLC,
David Kostman, Zwika Pres and Hugo Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08603 (S.D. N.Y., November 4, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
N.Y. Labor Laws.

Defendants own, operate, or control a set of Mediterranean
restaurants one of which is located at 173 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, which operates under the name Nanoosh.
Varela was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but also
performed non-tipped, non-delivery duties, including stocking,
taking out the garbage, cleaning, doing errands, packing
deliveries, refilling condiments and bar tending.

Varela's actual duties in payroll records designated him as a
delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee allowing
Defendants to pay him below the minimum wage rate.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHH CORP: Obtains Favorable Ruling in CFPB RESPA Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria B. Earley and Robert M. Jaworski, writing for The National
Law Journal, report that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark decision earlier in
October related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Although the constitutional issue the court decided concerning the
structure and power of the CFPB has dominated news coverage, some
of the most important -- and likely, more permanent -- aspects of
the decision in PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have
received relatively little notice.

The case concerned the legality of certain arrangements between
PHH Corp. and several mortgage insurance companies in which PHH
would refer its residential mortgage loan borrowers to the
mortgage insurance companies and they would in turn purchase
mortgage reinsurance from a PHH affiliate The CFPB determined that
these arrangements violated Section 8 of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and ordered PHH to pay $109
million.  PHH appealed the CFPB's decision to the D.C. Circuit.

"UNCHECKED" POWER

Finding no historically comparable example of a single-director
structure in which the director is only removable for cause, and
where his power is unchecked by "diverse perspectives and
different points of view" often found in a multiple-member
commission or board structure, the court held that structure to be
unconstitutional.  This news immediately rippled throughout the
financial industry.  The court's remedy, however, was narrow:
allow the CFPB to continue its operations but sever the statutory
language that makes the director removable for cause.
Although this aspect of the decision is certainly important and
newsworthy, it is also the one least likely to stand.  An appeal
is almost certain, and it seems likely the D.C. Circuit en banc or
the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this finding since, based on
the court's other findings, it was simply unnecessary to have
reached the constitutional issue.  These other findings, however,
while less heralded, are themselves game-changers and, we predict,
likely to prevail when the final outcome is handed down.

The most important of these findings is the court's conclusion
that all CFPB enforcement actions are subject to a statute of
limitations.  The CFPB has consistently taken the position that no
statute of limitations applies when it pursues enforcement actions
through administrative proceedings.  Responding to court
skepticism that the CFPB could punish conduct occurring decades
ago, the CFPB asserted it would exercise its prosecutorial
discretion in such a case to refrain from doing so.  The court
found that premise absurd.  Accordingly, it invalidated a major
pressure point that the CFPB has exerted in settlement
negotiations by holding that the applicable statute of limitations
applies in both administrative and federal court proceedings.
Notably the court's ruling appears to encompass all 19 statutes
over which the CFPB has jurisdiction.

REINTERPRETATION OF RESPA

Another key finding concerns the agency's reinterpretation of
RESPA Section 8(c)(2), which states: "Nothing in this section
shall be construed as prohibiting . . . the payment to any person
of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods
or facilities actually furnished or for services actually
performed."

Rejecting PHH's defense that the section permitted its
arrangements with mortgage insurance companies, the CFPB
interpreted this language as merely a "clarification" of, rather
than an exception to, Section 8, and only relevant "if there is a
question as to whether the parties actually did enter into [a
referral] agreement."  The court forcefully disagreed, stating
that: (1) the statutory question was "not a close call," (2)
"[n]othing means nothing" and (3) PHH's interpretation of Section
8(c)(2) was consistent with the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development's long-standing interpretation, RESPA's multiple
purposes and its legislative history.

Because the legality of other types of arrangements involving
referrals have been based on Section 8(c)(2) -- such as marketing
service agreements -- the importance of this finding is magnified.

Finally, the court held essentially that it was a violation of
fundamental fairness for the CFPB to reinterpret RESPA Section 8
and then apply its new interpretation retroactively.  In entering
into these arrangements, PHH primarily relied on a widely
disseminated 1997 Housing and Urban Development letter advising
that such arrangements are permissible if the payments to the
reinsurer are for reinsurance services actually provided and are
bona fide compensation not exceeding their value.

The CFPB concluded otherwise in 2015 and sought to punish PHH for
establishing these arrangements going back to 2008.  The court
rightly held that this violated the due process clause,
analogizing it to a police officer telling a pedestrian she can
lawfully cross the street in the middle of the block and then
giving her a ticket when she does so -- a significant win for PHH
and a significant setback for the CFPB.

Signs are clear that the CFPB will appeal -- in fact, in a filing
in an unrelated case, the CFPB asserted that the PHH case was
"wrongly decided and is not likely to withstand further review."
Whether the CFPB chooses to present its arguments to the full
panel of the D.C. Circuit or through an emergency appeal directly
to the Supreme Court, this case will continue to be one to watch.


PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Criddell Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MYLINDA CRIDDELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PREMIER
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-05842-R-KS (C.D. Cal.),
moves the Court for an order granting certification of three
classes.

   (1) Class for Count I of the First Amended Complaint for
       violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

       All individuals who: (1) signed Premier Healthcare
       Services, LLC's form entitled "Background Investigation
       Authority" attached to the First Amended Complaint as
       Exhibit 2 or a substantially similar document; and (2) on
       whom Premier Healthcare Services, LLC procured a consumer
       report for employment purposes in the period beginning two
       years prior to the filing of this First Amended Complaint.

   (2) Class for Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the First Amended
       Complaint, collectively referred to as the California
       statutory claims, stemming from the Defendant's alleged
       failure to provide accurate wage statements and failure to
       reimburse for business expenses in violation of the
       California Labor Code and California Business &
       Professions Code:

       All individuals who have been employed as Home Care Aides
       by Premier Healthcare Services, LLC in the State of
       California at any time since the date four years preceding
       the filing of this action; and

   (3) Collective for Count II of the Plaintiff's First Amended
       Complaint for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

       All Home Care Aides employed by Premier Healthcare
       Services, LLC at any time between October 13, 2015 and the
       date that Defendant began paying Home Care Aides overtime
       wages pursuant to federal law.

The Plaintiff also (i) seeks appointment as Class Representative
for both all Classes and as Collective Representative for the
Collective, (ii) asks the Court to appoint Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP and Weinhaus & Potaschnick as Class Counsel to represent both
Classes and Collective, and (iii) asks the Court to require the
parties to meet and confer to agree upon a Class Notice for each
certified Class, a Collective Notice for the Collective, and a
Consent to Join Form for the Collective.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KJQ0GH7k

The Court will commence a hearing on December 5, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: lindner@stuevesigel.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: mark@wp-attorneys.com


PRIORITY ENERGY: Court Grants Matthews' Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder, III, entered an order in the lawsuit
titled STEVEN MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PRIORITY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case
No. 6:15-cv-00448-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex.), adopting the report and
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, which contains
her findings, conclusions and recommendation regarding the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Report and Recommendation issued on September 14, 2016,
recommends that the Motion be granted because the Plaintiff
presents a reasonable basis to conclude a class of similarly
situated individuals exists and Defendants Priority Energy
Services, LLC, Priority Well Testing, LLC and Priority Coiled
Tubing, LLC's remaining arguments do not prevent conditional
certification.  Neither party filed written objections.

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are adopted as those of the Court.

In light of the findings in the Report and Recommendation, Judge
Schroeder granted the Plaintiff's Motion and the Court
conditionally certifies the collective action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xWNX3QeE


PRODUCTION TESTING: Class of Operators Certified in "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore granted the Plaintiff's amended
unopposed motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
titled SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PRODUCTION TESTING SERVICES INC. and ROBERT
A. HOFF, Case No. 4:16-cv-01152 (S.D. Tex.).  The Court
conditionally certified this class:

     All current and former field operators of Defendant
     Production Testing Services, Inc. and/or predecessor
     companies of said entity, employed as LBOs (Limited Benefit
     Only operators) paid a day rate, who performed surface well
     operations, including frack flowback and exploration well
     testing, or similar job positions that included similar job
     duties, from April 28, 2013, through the present.

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against all the
Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and other similarly
situated employees for overtime during a three-year work period.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs a 30-day Opt-in period and that
Defendants must produce to the Plaintiff's counsel, within 10 days
of entry of the Court's Order, a list in electronic format, of all
individuals, who worked for the Defendants as field operators
during the past three years.

The Court finds that the proposed Notice and Consent forms are
accurate, timely, and informative and must be sent to all field
operators, who worked as LBOs for Defendants from April 28, 2013
to the present.

The Defendants are prohibited from communicating, directly or
indirectly, with the Class about any matters, which touch or
concern the settlement of any outstanding wage claims or other
matters related to the lawsuit during the opt-in period.  The
order will not restrict the Defendants from discussing with any
current employee matters that arise in the normal course of
business, nor will it apply to Class Members, who have not opted
into the lawsuit after the deadline for opting-in has passed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B11ln47r

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IHe0yPH9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John David Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
          Wells Fargo Tower
          201 Main Street, Suite 1720
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870-2102
          Facsimile: (817) 332-5858
          E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


Q CLUB HOTEL: Dear Wants to Certify Residential Unit Owners Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Dear moves the Court for an order certifying the action
captioned GARY DEAR, as Class Representative of those similarly
situated v. Q CLUB HOTEL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 0:15-cv-60474-JIC (S.D. Fla.), as a class
action, on behalf of the "Class" and "Class Members" defined as:

     Residential Unit Owners who, during the five-year period
     preceding the filing of this action (the "Class Period"),
     paid Q CLUB or persons acting on its behalf costs,
     expenses and charges which were billed as a Residential Unit
     Owner's allocated share of Shared Costs4 identified in
     Exhibit 7 to the Declaration.

     Excluded from the Class are: Q Club Hotel, LLC, Costa Dorada
     Assoc., LTD., Costa Dorada Associates, Inc., Hilton
     Worldwide, Inc., and other Hilton-branded entities, their
     subsidiaries, principals, partners, agents, employees, and
     representatives, and the Court, its personnel, and those
     individual relatives within the third degree of relationship
     of the District Court judge and Magistrate presiding over
     this case as defined in Chapter 2, Canon 3, of the Code of
     Conduct for United States Judges.

Mr. Dear also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint his counsel as class counsel.  He
further asks the Court to direct that reasonable and adequate
notice be provided to Class Members at the Defendant's expense
under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Matthew D. Weissing, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com
                  matt@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq.
          SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
          20 SE 3rd Street
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 392-1230
          E-mail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com

Defendant Q Club Hotel, LLC, is represented by:

          Laurence S. Litow, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          350 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1420
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 414-6200
          Facsimile: (954) 414-6201
          E-mail: lslitow@burr.com

               - and -

          Ronald Pena, Esq.
          John C. Lukacs, Sr., Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          E-mail: rpena@hinshawlaw.com
                  jlukacs@hinshawlaw.com


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Rivera Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelley Rivera asks the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled KELLEY RIVERA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01480-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5pxPsKWM

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


RHD JR INC: Mechanics Class Certification Sought in "Jordan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK JORDAN and BRANDON
WATKINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RHD, JR., INC., d/b/a MAYFLOWER RV SALES & SERVICE;
and ROBERT H. DUDLEY, JR., Case No. 2:16-cv-02227-PKH (W.D. Ark.),
ask the Court to conditionally certify this class:

     All mechanics (or similar positions) employed by Defendants
     RHD, Jr., Inc. d/b/a Mayflower RV Sales & Service; and
     Robert H. Dudley, Jr., at any time after September 12, 2013.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of certain former and
current hourly-paid mechanic employees of the Defendants to
recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, among other claims.

In addition, the Plaintiffs ask for approval and distribution of
notice and that the Defendants be ordered to provide the names and
current or last known mailing and e-mail addresses of all
potential class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8ru5O5oO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allen C. Dobson, Esq.
          Shelley Fleisch-Djurica, Esq.
          BAXTER, JEWELL & DOBSON, P.A.
          One Information Way, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 664-9555
          Facsimile: (501) 664-9559
          E-mail: adobson@bjd-law.com
                  sdjurica@bjd-law.com


ROMERO BROTHERS: "Rodriguez" Action Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. Romero Brothers Lumper Services LLC and Richard A.
Romero, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24618, (S.D.
Fla., November 4, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
willful violations of overtime pay and minimum wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants re-palletizes and re-distributes goods throughout the
United States where Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an
unloader and palletizer of dry goods. Rodriguez seeks payment of
overtime wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      2847 Hollywood Blvd.
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Tel: (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
      Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Schmidt" Sues Over Defective Smartphone
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01725 (W.D. Wash., November 4, 2016), seeks
temporary and permanent enjoinment of Samsung from selling the
Galaxy Note 7; injunctive relief, including public injunctive
relief; costs, restitution, damages and disgorgement of illegally
obtained profits; revocation of acceptance; declaratory relief as
the court deems appropriate; treble and/or punitive damages as
permitted by applicable laws; pre- and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded; costs and attorneys' fees and such other or
further relief resulting from breach of warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment and violation of Washington's
Consumer Protection Act and Product Liability Act.

The Class suit alleges that the Defendant's Galaxy Note 7
spontaneously bursts into flames.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a corporation existing under
the law of the State of New York and is headquartered at 85
Challenger Rd, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation existing
under the law of South Korea with its principal place of business
at 129, Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon-Shi, Gyenggi-do, South
Korea 16677. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the parent company
of Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung SDI America, Inc. is a corporation existing under the law
of the State of California and is headquartered at 3655 North
First Street, San Jose, CA 95134.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Lisa A. Nowlin, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
             lnowlin@kellerrohrback.com


SANTA FE, TX: Cert. of Class and Subclass Sought in "West" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled GEORGE WEST, ROBERT JONES,
and BRADY FULLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF SANTA FE, TEXAS; CARLTON GETTY, Municipal
Judge, in his individual capacity; and JEFFREY POWELL, Chief of
Police, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:16-cv-00309 (S.D.
Tex.), seek certification of a class and subclass:

     Class: All people who are subject to an open capias pro fine
            warrant issued by Santa Fe Municipal Court.


     Damages subclass: All people confined in the Santa Fe Jail
            since November 3, 2014, under a capias pro fine
            warrant resulting from an uncounseled misdemeanor
            prosecution in Santa Fe Municipal Court.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs challenge the City of Santa
Fe's alleged unconstitutional policies of jailing people for
failure to pay their fines.

The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of their counsel to
represent the certified class under Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nGqsqW1K

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          Rebecca Robertson, Esq.
          ACLU OF TEXAS
          1500 McGowen Street, Suite 250
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
          E-mail: ttrigilio@aclutx.org
                  rrobertson@aclutx.org


SAW ENTERTAINMENT: Hughes Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the action
styled NICOLE HUGHES, ANGELYNN HERMES, and PENNY NUNEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT, LTD, d/b/a Larry Flynt's Hustler Club, and
GOLD CLUB - S.F., LLC d/b/a Gold Club San Francisco, Case No.
4:16-cv-03371-YGR (N.D. Cal.), as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order that notice informing
them of their right to opt-in to the case be issued to all
dancers, who have worked for the Defendants during the last three
years.  The Plaintiffs performed as exotic dancers at adult
entertainment clubs operated by the Defendant.  They have brought
the action seeking to recover wages they claim they are owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state law.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 13, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=psWbYyb6

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SCHNEIDER PUBLISHING: Gorss Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC. a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. SCHNEIDER PUBLISHING
COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01833 (D. Conn.), moves for class certification.

Gorss Motels also asks the Court to take the Motion under
submission and deferring further activity on it until after the
discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
scheduling order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tiTmqG3r

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


SPEEDPAY INC: Ct. Orders Pincus to File Redacted Motion to Certify
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
request for motion for class certification and accompanying
exhibits to be filed under seal in the lawsuit entitled CARYN
PINCUS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SPEEDPAY, INC., a New York corporation, Case
No. 9:15-cv-80164-KAM (S.D. Fla.).  The motion to certify class is
denied without prejudice.

The Court has examined the Motion and the attached exhibits and
concludes that sealing the exhibits is appropriate, but sealing
the entire Motion and memorandum of law in support is unnecessary.
Hence, Judge Marra directed the Plaintiff to file a new redacted
version of the Motion and memoranda of law.  The redacted version
should allow the public to see what arguments are made in support
of the Motion, but may redact proprietary or private information
that is extracted from the exhibits.  Docket entry 78 will remain
sealed for one year after the resolution of any appeals in this
matter, at which time the sealed filings should be destroyed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tt6cVSa3


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Feb. 6 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PREPAID AN FHA-INSURED LOAN WITH SUNTRUST, YOUR LEGAL
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS FROM A
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1. Why did I get this Notice?
If you received this Notice and it is addressed to you, then the
parties believe that you may be a member of the Class.

2. What is this lawsuit about?
On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Sarah Felix filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entitled
Sarah Felix, et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00066-
RWS ("Felix") asserting individual and class-wide claims for
breach of contract against SunTrust.

The lawsuit claims that SunTrust breached a uniform note it
entered into with Plaintiff and the Class when it collected post-
payment interest on FHA-insured loans that were (i) entered into
between June 1, 1996 and January 20, 2015 and (ii) prepaid within
the statute of limitations applicable to the loan.  Plaintiff
contends that under the uniform note SunTrust entered into with
her and the Class, SunTrust can only collect post-payment interest
as permitted by HUD regulations incorporated into the note, and
that SunTrust did not comply with those regulations.
In particular, Plaintiff contends that, in response to inquiries,
requests for payoff figures and tenders of pre-payment, SunTrust
did not comply with the HUD regulation requiring it to provide
borrowers with certain information about post-payment interest in
a form approved by the FHA/HUD Commissioner.  Plaintiff contends
that because SunTrust did not comply with HUD regulations
incorporated into the note, SunTrust had no right to collect post-
payment interest, and breached the note by doing so. Plaintiff
also contends that SunTrust violated Georgia's usury laws by
collecting post-payment interest when it was not permitted to do
so under the note.  SunTrust denies Plaintiff's and the Class's
claims, and denies that it is liable for any of the claims
asserted in the lawsuit.

3. What is a class action?
In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called class
representatives sue on behalf of other people that allegedly have
similar claims.

All of the people who have claims similar to the class
representatives are a "class" or "class members," except for those
who exclude themselves from the class.

4. Who is in the Class certified by the Court?
On September 9, 2016, for purposes of settlement only, the Court
preliminarily certified a class defined as: Any person who had a
FHA-insured loan for which (i) the date of the note is during a
period beginning on June 1, 1996 and ending on January 20, 2015;
(ii) SunTrust or a SunTrust affiliate - as of the date the total
amount due on the loan was brought to zero - was the lender,
mortgagee, or otherwise held legal title to the note; (iii)
SunTrust collected interest for any period after the total amount
due on the loan was brought to zero (i.e., SunTrust
collected "post-payment interest"); and (iv) SunTrust collected
post-payment interest during the statute of limitations
period applicable for the loan as shown by Exhibit A (the
"Class").  Persons who had a loan brought to zero on the last
calendar day of a month or on the first business day of a month
are not included in the Class.  Also excluded from the Class
is anyone who received a payoff form SunTrust began using on or
after April 1, 2016.

You can view Exhibit A at www.FelixMortgageSettlement.com or
request a copy by contacting the Administrator at the address
below.

Any person who meets the definition above is a "Class Member."
Felix Mortgage Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 43034,
Providence, RI, 02940-3034

THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT

5. What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement provides that SunTrust will provide injunctive and
monetary relief as follows:

Injunctive Relief
For a period of three years from the Effective Date, SunTrust
agrees that in response to a pre-payment inquiry, request for
payoff figures or tender of pre-payment, it will provide the
required disclosures relating to post-payment interest in a form
approved by the FHA/HUD Commissioner.  The injunctive relief
component of the Settlement applies only to borrowers with FHA-
insured loans entered into between June 1, 1996 and January 20,
2015. Further, nothing in the injunctive relief requires SunTrust
to violate any law or regulation.

Monetary Relief
SunTrust agrees to pay Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($3,500,000) to settle the class action (the "Settlement Fund").
The Settlement Fund will be used to pay Class Members their
Settlement proceeds, as well as to pay any Class Representative
Service Award (see Paragraph 11 below) and any Fee & Expense Award
(see Paragraph 11 below).  SunTrust also agrees to pay all fees,
costs and expenses associated with providing notice and
administering the Settlement, which shall be in addition to the
$3.5 million Settlement payment above.

Class Member Awards - Each Class Member who does not timely opt
out of the Settlement will be entitled to receive a "Class Member
Award."  The amount of the Class Member Award will be determined
as follows:

(i) First, the Administrator will sum the total amount of post-
payment interest SunTrust collected from all Class Members
who do not opt out of the Settlement;
(ii) Second, the Administrator will divide each Class Member's
individual post-payment interest by the sum of all
post-payment interest collected by SunTrust as calculated in (i)
immediately above; and
(iii) Third, the Administrator will multiply the percentage
calculated in (ii) immediately above by the Net Settlement Fund,
with that number constituting the Class Member Award.

Thus, by way of hypothetical example, if SunTrust collected $100
in post-payment interest from Class Member X, $10,000,000 from all
Class Members who do not opt out and the Net Settlement Fund is
$2.5 million, then Class Member X's recovery would be $25;
i.e. 100/10,000,000 x $2.5 million. The "Net Settlement Fund" is
the amount of the $3.5 million Settlement Fund remaining after
deductions for any Class Representative Service Award and Fee &
Expense Award (see Paragraph 11 below).

If the Settlement is finally approved, all Class Members who do
not timely opt out shall be deemed to have released, relinquished
and forever discharged SunTrust as well as its past, present and
future parent corporation(s), wholly and majority-owned
company(ies), affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors,
successors-in-interest, and assigns, as well as any lender,
mortgagee or other title holder (the "Released Parties") of any
notes of a Class Member, from all of the "Released Claims," as
that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.  For clarity,
the notes referenced in the preceding sentence pertain to only
those notes for which SunTrust or a SunTrust affiliate
was the lender, mortgagee, or otherwise was the holder of legal
title at the time the outstanding balance was paid to zero. All
Class Members who do not opt out will agree not to institute,
assign, maintain, collect on or prosecute any further action
against the Released Parties arising out of, based upon, or
relating in any way to the Released Claims.  The Released Claims
include all claims, whether known or unknown, that
relate to SunTrust collecting post-payment interest on FHA-insured
loans that you prepaid within the statute of limitations. You may
review the entire release and the definitions of "Released Claims"
in the Settlement Agreement, which you can find at
www.FelixMortgageSettlement.com.


6. How do I get a payment from the Settlement Fund, and when will
I get it?
If the Settlement is approved by the Court after the Final
Approval Hearing (see Paragraphs 12-14 below) and becomes final,
the Settlement funds will be distributed to Class Members under a
schedule and distribution procedure approved by the Court. The
Settlement will not become final until the time to appeal the
Court's approval has expired or any appeals of that approval are
resolved.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE

7. How do I opt out of the Settlement?
If you wish to remain in the Class you do not need to do anything
at this time.  Class Members who do not timely and validly exclude
themselves from the Class in the manner described below will be
bound by the proposed Settlement and judgment, including the
release of claims described above.

You have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement and the
Class.  If you do so, you will not be bound by the proposed
Settlement or judgment, including the release of claims described
above, and you will not be entitled to any of the benefits of the
proposed Settlement, including any right to receive a share of the
Settlement Fund.  Further, if you exclude yourself from the
Settlement and the Class, you will not be entitled to object to
the terms of the proposed Settlement.  To exclude yourself from
the Settlement and the Class, you must send or deliver a written
request stating your election to do so to the Administrator at the
following address: Felix Mortgage Settlement Administrator,
P.O. Box 43034, Providence, RI 02940-3034.

In order for your opt-out to be valid, the written statement you
provide to the Administrator must meet the following requirements:

(i) it must be in writing; (ii) include your name and last four
digits of your social security number; (iii) be personally signed
and dated by the Class Member; (iv) be received by the
Administrator no later than January 2, 2017; and (v) clearly state
that you are opting out of the Class and understand that you will
receive no money from the Settlement.

8. How do I object to or comment upon the Settlement?
If you are a member of the Class you may comment upon or object to
the Settlement.  For example, if you do not believe that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable or adequate, you may file an
objection to the Settlement.  You may also comment upon or object
to the motions by Class Counsel for reimbursement of expenses, for
an award of attorneys' fees or for Plaintiff to receive a service
award (see Paragraph 11).

If you want your comment or objection to be considered by the
Court, you must send a letter that contains all of the following:

   -- The name of the lawsuit, Felix, et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00066-RWS;

   -- A statement that you object to or wish to comment upon the
Settlement or the motions by Class Counsel for reimbursement
of expenses, for an award of attorneys' fees or for a service
award for the Plaintiff (see Paragraph 11);

   -- A statement of the specific legal and factual basis for each
objection;

   -- Copies of any evidence or documents you want the Court to
consider;

   -- A statement, and documentation, demonstrating that you are a
member of the Class;

   -- Identification, with specificity, of each instance in which
you or your counsel has objected to a class action settlement in
the last five years;

   -- If you (or your lawyer) want to appear and speak at the
Final Approval Hearing, a statement that you wish to appear and
speak; and

   -- The identity of any witnesses you want to call to testify at
the Final Approval Hearing

Your objection must be personally signed by you and must be mailed
to the Court and received no later than January 2, 2017. The
Court's address is:

United States Courthouse & Federal Building
121 Spring Street, SE
Room 201
Gainesville, GA 30501

Copies of your objection must also be mailed to the following
lawyers and received no later than January 2, 2017:

Steven Rosenwasser
BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
3900 One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
Class Counsel

Jeffrey Willis
ROGERS & HARDIN LLP
2700 International Tower
229 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303
SunTrust's Counsel

If you file a timely and valid objection or comment, the Court
will consider your views.  If the Court overrules your objection
and approves the Settlement, you will still be bound by the terms
of the Settlement and you may still participate in the Settlement.

9. Can I appear in this lawsuit through my own lawyer?
If you are a Class Member you may (but do not have to) appear in
this lawsuit and speak to the Court about the Settlement.  This is
called making an appearance.  You may make an appearance on your
own, or you may have your own lawyer do so at your own expense.
If you want your own lawyer to appear and speak to the Court about
the Settlement, your lawyer must file a "Notice of Appearance"
with the Court no later than January 2, 2017 and send copies to
the lawyers listed in Paragraph 8 above.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

10. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
Yes. The Court has appointed the following lawyers to represent
you and all Class Members:

Steven Rosenwasser
Naveen Ramachandrappa
Frederic J. Bold, Jr.
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP
3900 One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417

Adam Hoipkemer
Kevin Epps
Jeff DeLoach
Epps, Holloway, DeLoach & Hoipkemier, LLC
1220 Langford Dr. Bldg. 200
Suite 101
Watkinsville, GA 30677

Together, these lawyers are called Class Counsel.  Fees for Class
Counsel's work will be paid from the Settlement Fund in an amount
to be approved by the Court.  Paragraphs 5 and 11 explain how
Class Counsel's fees and expenses will be deducted from the
Settlement Fund.

11. How much will Class Counsel be paid? What will the Class
Representative receive?
At the Final Approval Hearing, Class Counsel will ask the Court to
approve payment of attorneys' fees and expenses of no more than
33% of the Settlement Fund (the "Fee & Expense Award"). The Court
may approve this amount or a lower amount.

In return for the Plaintiff's contributions to the lawsuit,
including reviewing and providing records, providing insight and
opinions regarding the case and Settlement, and otherwise bearing
the burdens of assisting the prosecution of this lawsuit, the
Plaintiff intends to ask the Court for a service award not to
exceed $7,500 (the "Class Representative Service Award").  Payment
of this amount requires Court approval and would be in addition to
any payment Plaintiff would receive from the Settlement Fund.
As stated above, any Fee & Expense Award and/or Class
Representative Service Award will be deducted from the Settlement
Fund, and the amount remaining to pay Class Member Awards after
those deductions is the Net Settlement Fund.

The motion of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
for reimbursement of expenses, as well as any motion for a service
award to the Plaintiff, as described above, will be filed with the
Court by December 16, 2016. These documents will be available from
the PACER website, the Court or Class Counsel.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to consider everyone's views and to
decide whether to finally approve the Settlement. You may attend
and you may ask to speak, but you don't have to.

12. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
Settlement?
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 6, 2017.
The Court is located at the United States Courthouse & Federal
Building, 121 Spring Street, SE, Room 201, Gainesville, GA 30501,
and the hearing will be held before Judge Richard Story.  At the
hearing, the Court will consider all timely and valid objections,
and will consider whether the Settlement is fair, adequate and
reasonable.  The Court will also consider the motions of Class
Counsel for a Fee & Expense Award and for a Class Representative
Service Award as described in Paragraph 11.  The Court will listen
to people who have timely and validly asked to speak at the
hearing.  After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to
approve the Settlement.

13. Do I have to come to the Final Approval Hearing?
You don't have to come to the Final Approval Hearing.  But you
and/or your lawyer are welcome to come at your own expense.  If
you send a timely and valid written objection or comment, you
don't have to come to the hearing for the Court to consider it.

14. Can I speak at the Final Approval Hearing?
If you send a timely and valid objection, you can ask to speak
about it at the Final Approval Hearing. To do so, your objection
must say that you want to speak at the hearing as described in
Paragraphs 8 and 9 above.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

15. What should I do if my address is different or I move?
Please remember that you must notify the Administrator of any
change of address after you receive this Notice.  You can contact
the Administrator, by writing to Felix Mortgage Settlement
Administrator, P.O. Box 43034, Providence, RI 02940-3034.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

16. Are more details about the lawsuit and the Settlement
available?
This Notice summarizes the lawsuit and Settlement. More details
are in the pleadings and other documents filed in this lawsuit.
You can read these documents on the PACER federal court website or
at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, located at United States Courthouse
& Federal Building, 121 Spring Street, SE, Room 201, Gainesville,
GA 30501.

Further information can also be found at
www.FelixMortgageSettlement.com.

Please do not contact the Clerk or the Court, as they cannot
answer any questions about the lawsuit or the Settlement.


TAYLOR SMITH: Law Seeks Certification of Driver Helpers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled William J. Law, Jason
Blackshear, Jonas Nelson, Frederico Daniels, and Donald McAfee on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Taylor
Smith Consulting, LLC and Tracy T. Smith, Case No. 4:16-cv-01164
(S.D. Tex.), move the Court for an order to send notice to
potential class members in the case as a collective action on
behalf of this class of similarly situated persons:

     All of Defendants' current and former employees employed as
     Driver Helpers and who were paid pursuant to a flat daily
     rate with no payment for hours worked beyond 40 hours before
     the filing of this Complaint up to the present.

The case arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive all
overtime compensation due because Taylor Smith Consulting and
Defendant Smith did not credit the Plaintiffs with overtime hours
worked, thereby, violating the FLSA by not paying the Plaintiffs
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in each workweek.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          David L. Bergen, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3501 Allen Parkway
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 526-2222
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
          E-mail: cvethan@vethanlaw.com


TAYLOR SMITH: Ntuk Seeks to Certify Class of Onsite Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CEDRIC NTUK, JOHN CLARK,
DRACHAN JOHNSON, and KEVIN MALLARD on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. TAYLOR SMITH CONSULTING, LLC, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01165 (S.D. Tex.), move the Court for an order to send
notice to potential class members in the case as a class action on
behalf of this class of similarly situated persons:

     All of Defendant's current and former employees employed as
     Onsite Supervisors and who were paid pursuant to a flat
     salary with no overtime payment for hours worked beyond 40
     hours before the filing of this Complaint up to the present.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they did not
receive all overtime compensation due because the Defendants did
not credit the Plaintiffs with overtime hours worked.  By failing
to pay the Plaintiffs overtime compensation for hours worked over
40 in each workweek, the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiffs allege.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8yW0EWxX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          David L. Bergen, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3501 Allen Parkway
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 526-2222
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
          E-mail: cvethan@vethanlaw.com


TWIN RIVERS: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Minor" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Minor and Donald Skaggs move the Court for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the action styled CHRISTOPHER
       MINOR, et al., for themselves and others similarly
       situated v. TWIN RIVERS CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No.
       2:16-cv-01002-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action
       under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The FLSA class is
       defined as:

       All current and former Laborers and Laborer Foremen
       employed by Defendant between October 19, 2013 and the
       present, who were paid hourly and have not been paid
       overtime pay for all hours worked in a week in excess of
       40 for the time spent traveling from the Columbus shop to
       the jobsite, or from the jobsite back to the Columbus
       shop;

   (2) certifying the action as a class action under Rule 23 of
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Rule class is
       defined as:

       All current and former Laborers and Laborer Foremen
       employed by Defendant between October 19, 2014 and the
       present, who were paid hourly and have not been paid
       overtime pay for all hours worked in a week in excess of
       40 for the time spent traveling from the Columbus shop to
       the jobsite, or from the jobsite back to the Columbus
       shop; and

   (3) designating Mansell Law, LLC, as Class Counsel pursuant to
       Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
       authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notices of the lawsuit
       to the putative class members, informing them of their
       rights and providing them with an opportunity to join the
       action by way of the Proposed Notice of Collective Action
       and Class Action.

On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated current and former employees, commenced
the action alleging that Twin Rivers unlawfully failed to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, including compensable travel time in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. Count One of the Complaint
seeks relief under the FLSA.  Count Two of the Complaint seeks
relief under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mugnZ129

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
          E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
                  Carrie.Dyer@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com


UGL: Class Action Over Ichthys LNG Project Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Tony Boyd, writing for Financial Review, reports that when the 40-
year history of engineering contractor UGL is written, the last
chapter will be all about the one project in the Northern
Territory that destroyed the company's independence.

UGL's existence as an independent company listed on the ASX is
coming to end following the board's recommendation in favour of a
$3.15 a share takeover offer from Spanish owned construction group
CIMIC.

The contract that, in effect, killed the company was the Ichthys
LNG project in the Northern Territory.

It comprises two joint ventures.  There is the $740 million
Ichthys SMP project, which is a joint venture between UGL and
Kentz Corporation for the structural, mechanical and piping
construction package for the LNG trains.

The second contract is the $550 million Ichthys CCPP project,
which is a joint venture between UGL and CH2M Hill for the
construction of a combined cycle power plant.

Both joint venture vehicles awarded the contracts for construction
to JKC Australia, a joint venture between JGC Corporation, KBR and
Chiyoda Corporation.

So far the two contracts have cost UGL shareholders $375 million
in provisions. But the costs could rise beyond this.

It is the uncertainty over future claims that played a key role in
convincing a majority of UGL directors to recommend the CIMIC
takeover offer.

UGL reckons the blame for these two contracts going off the rails
can be blamed on the client failing to deliver and changes in
scope.

But there is a question mark over the disclosure by the board and
management of UGL in relation to the Ichthys project in late 2014.

At that time, CH2M said things to the US Securities and Exchange
Commission which were not revealed to Australian shareholders
until several months later.

Alleged lack of disclosure by the board is at the core of the
class action against UGL funded by IMF Bentham and handled by
Slater & Gordon.

UGL has rejected the class action and attempted to have it
permanently stayed.

But it makes sense for UGL shareholders to join the class action
now that CIMIC is likely to win control of the company.

Prior to the board recommendation in favour of the CIMIC offer
there would have been shareholders who thought it was against the
company's interests to join a class action.

But once the company becomes a subsidiary of CIMIC the potential
conflict of interest will have been removed.

UGL chairman Kate Spargo admitted on Nov. 7 at the company's
annual meeting that the uncertainty surrounding the Ichthys
project was one reason to accept the CIMIC offer.

"One of the primary risks of remaining a UGL shareholder is the
fact that our debt levels are higher than most of our peers," she
said.

"We are therefore at greater risk if unforeseen events negatively
impact our base business or the Ichthys projects and extend us
beyond our available headroom.

"In such circumstances, we may need to seek alternative funding
sources including a potential equity raising.

"On the other hand, the $3.15 offer is cash which provides near
term certainty for UGL shareholders."

Ms. Spargo referred to the independent expert's report prepared by
Grant Samuel, which highlighted the additional risk factors that
shareholders "may like to take into consideration given there are
a number of adverse circumstances which make the outlook for UGL
and the future value of its share price uncertain".


Grant Samuel found the bid fair and reasonable and within its
valuation range of $3.11 to $3.94.

Ms. Spargo said: "The board believes that in the absence of the
CIMIC offer and if no superior proposal emerges, UGL's share price
may fall below $3.15 immediately following the close of the
offer."

It is hard to underestimate the scale of the damage caused to UGL
by the Ichthys project.

It basically stopped the payment of dividends and wiped out a
couple of year's worth of earnings.

It made the company vulnerable to takeover and it has left an
unquantified amount of contingent liabilities from the class
action.

Grant Samuel said it was not possible to make any estimate of the
cost of the potential class actions against UGL.

The liability held by the company's insurers, however, must be
known to the company's board. It has not revealed this
information.

There were many reasons why a majority of the UGL board
recommended the CIMIC offer including the lack of an alternative
offer, the premium to the prevailing share price and certainty of
having cash in the hand now.

But in Chanticleer's opinion the uncertainty created by the
Ichthys liability was ultimately the single most important factor
in favour of CIMIC's bid.

UGL chief executive Ross Taylor did everything he could to turn
around UGL but it was a multi-year project made all that much
harder by the uncertainty over the ultimate cost of the Ichthys
project.

One lasting lesson from the demise of UGL as an independent
company is that if a company gets one single project wrong it can
determine its future.

That raises the broader question of how to value engineering
contracting companies.  If one project can wipe out several years
worth of earnings then how do you calculate the fair value of a
company with a pipeline of contracts?


UNITED STATES: Tea Party Group Gets Favorable Ruling in IRS Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cortney O'Brien, writing for Townhall, reports that The Texas
Patriots Tea Party emerged as victor in its case against the IRS.
On Nov. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Michael R. Barrett ruled that
the agency must process TPTP's application for tax exempt status
after a long (and seemingly politically motivated) delay.

It's now clear the IRS segregated TPTP's application in 2012
because it was a conservative political organization.  It was just
one instance in a larger scandal in which the IRS targeted
conservatives and unfairly stalled their applications.

The agency has insisted it no longer practices such political
bias, yet the court said that doesn't solve TPTP's issue.

"Regardless of the fact the IRS purports to have stopped applying
the inappropriate political advocacy criteria in 2013, the
evidence is undisputed that the IRS continued to delay processing
TPTP's until August of 2016," the judge wrote in his decision."
Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self Governance, applauded
the judge's decision.

"In the closing days of the election, we have further proof of
deeply rooted corruption by Democrats," he said in a statement.
"The federal judge in a class action funded by our organization
(Citizens for Self-Governance) on behalf tea party and other
conservative organizations, has ruled against the IRS in their
Summary Judgment motion and in favor of Plaintiff Texas Patriots
Tea Party on a request for a Preliminary Injunction.  The Judge
ruled that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits in
proving that IRS officials targeted American citizens for
harassment based on their political beliefs."


VERIZON INC: Says FCC Must Not Prohibit Arbitration Clauses
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the fight over forced arbitration in consumer contracts found its
latest front in the lobbying over the Federal Communications
Commission's sweeping broadband privacy proposal.
In advance of the Oct. 27 vote on the proposal, which is designed
to give consumers greater control over how their data is used,
Verizon Inc. pushed to preserve its ability to require customers
to resolve disputes in arbitration.  According to a disclosure
form posted on the FCC's website on Oct. 24, in-house lawyers for
Verizon met with an aide to Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and "noted
that the commission cannot -- and should not -- prohibit
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts."

Verizon's disclosure, signed by assistant general counsel
Catherine Hilke, pointed to the Federal Arbitration Act in urging
the commission not to restriction arbitration.

"Nothing in the Communications Act or any other statute authorizes
the commission to supersede Congress' policy judgment favoring
arbitration clauses," Ms. Hilke wrote.

Representatives from Comcast Corp., Charter Communications and the
industry group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association made
similar appeals to an aide to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and
officials in the commission's wireline competition bureau.  In a
summary of two Oct. 18 meetings with FCC officials, an NCTA lawyer
argued that the commission has no authority to restrict
arbitration.

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld mandatory arbitration
clauses in commercial contracts in the face of laws that seek to
invalidate such provisions, including in the communications
context," Loretta Polk, vice president and associate general
counsel for NCTA-The Internet & Television Association. (Davis
Wright Tremaine partner Christin McMeley and Mintz Levin partner
Christopher Harvie also attended the meetings, according to the
form.)

Verizon's closest competitor, AT&T Inc., has not addressed
arbitration in recent filings with the FCC. But it's stance on
arbitration is well-known.

AT&T Mobility LLC won the U.S. Supreme Court case in 2011 that let
companies enforce class-action waivers, forcing consumers into
arbitration. Since that decision, arbitration agreements have
proliferated and also drawn increased scrutiny from federal
regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and U.S. Health and Human Services Department.  Both
agencies have taken steps in recent months to restrict the use of
class-action waivers.

Clyburn has emerged as the FCC's leading advocate against
arbitration agreements.  On Oct. 23, Time posted an op-ed that
Clyburn co-authored with U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota,
arguing that communications companies have used class action
waivers to "evade accountability by effectively locking the
courtroom doors on their customers."

"They do it through the use of what are known as mandatory
arbitration clauses, buried deep in the fine print of the
contracts you have to sign in order to get internet service,"
wrote Clyburn and Franken, a member of the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.  "These clauses
force you to sign away your right to go to court in the event of a
dispute, in favor of a private arbitration process that is
inherently biased towards corporations and offers no meaningful
appeals process."

On Oct. 20, the same day Verizon met with the Clyburn aide, the
watchdog group Public Knowledge met with an aide to Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel and urged the FCC to prevent internet service
providers from enforcing arbitration clauses.

"At a minimum, even if the commission were to determine that it
did not intend to prohibit such clauses based on the record, the
Commission should clarify that it has such authority and will
revisit its determination if evidence of the abusive effects of
these clauses becomes more manifest," Harold Feld, Public
Knowledge's senior vice president, wrote in a disclosure form
filed with the FCC.

Echoing arguments in support of the CFPB's proposal to prohibit
class-action waivers, Public Knowledge argued that arbitration
clauses prevent consumers from joining together as a class and
complementing the FCC's enforcement efforts.  The watchdog group
noted the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's
decision in AT&T Mobility Services v. FTC, which restricted the
Federal Trade Commission's ability to regulate common carriers
under the FCC's regulatory umbrella.

"Without the ability to sue for relief in court, consumers have no
replacement for the loss of the FTC as a partner with the FCC,"
Mr. Feld wrote.  "Furthermore, the proliferation of mandatory
arbitration clauses effectively forecloses consumers from
enforcing their rights."


VIRGIN AMERICA: Class of Attendants Certified in "Bernstein" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and denies the Defendant's motion to strike the
expert report of David Breshears filed in the lawsuit styled JULIA
BERNSTEIN, et al. v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-02277-
JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted as to
these class and subclasses:

     Class: All individuals who have worked as California-based
     flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time during
     the period from March 18, 2011 (four years from the filing
     of the original Complaint) through the date established by
     the Court for notice of certification of the Class (the
     "Class Period").

     California Resident Subclass: All individuals who have
     worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin
     America, Inc. while residing in California at any time
     during the Class Period.

     Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All individuals who have
     worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin
     America, Inc. and have separated from their employment at
     any time since March 18, 2012.

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives and
appoints Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP and Kosinski +
Thiagaraj, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y2n3RDN7


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Defeat Device Software Discovered in Audi Models
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Boston, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
regulators in California recently discovered software installed on
some of Volkswagen AG's Audi models that appears to have allowed
the cars to cheat carbon-dioxide emissions testing standards,
according to people familiar with the matter.

The Audi software was designed to mask emissions implicated in
global warming, instead of smog as in the Volkswagen emissions-
cheating scandal that erupted last year, the people said.

The newly discovered software was detected four months ago during
laboratory tests by the California Air Resources Board, one of the
people said. Neither Volkswagen nor U.S. regulators have publicly
disclosed the discovery.

Officials at CARB, which has been heavily involved in a continuing
U.S. probe of Volkswagen engines, didn't respond to requests for
comment.

Audi, Volkswagen's luxury-car unit, declined to comment, citing
the Justice Department investigation into the Volkswagen scandal,
which broke more than a year ago when U.S. environmental
authorities disclosed that the German auto maker used illegal
software on many of its diesel-engine models to cheat emissions
testing for nitrogen oxides.

It isn't clear how seriously officials in California and federal
officials in Washington view the latest discovery, or whether
Volkswagen, under intense regulatory scrutiny around the world,
had identified it privately to regulators.

Whatever the case, the discovery threatens fresh anger from
officials, investors and car owners just as Volkswagen is wrapping
up billions of dollars in settlements with states and owners of
diesel-powered vehicles in the U.S. and a recall of nearly nine
million tainted diesel vehicles in Europe.

Volkswagen's previously disclosed "defeat device" software was
used on Volkswagen and Audi diesel engines to make it appear that
they complied with emission standards for nitrogen oxides during
lab tests.

The newly discovered software, installed on Audis with both diesel
and gasoline engines, did the same with CO2 emissions standards in
the U.S. and Europe, according to the people familiar with the
matter.

The CARB caught the emissions-cheating software through lessons
learned from the earlier probe of Volkswagen diesel engines,
according to Germany's weekly Bild am Sonntag newspaper, which
earlier reported the software's discovery.

CARB technicians conducting lab tests on Audi's vehicles made them
react as if on a road by turning the steering wheel, the people
said.

When the cars deviated from lab conditions, their CO2 emissions
rose dramatically.

The latest discovery comes at a sensitive moment for Volkswagen.
The company said on Nov. 6 that a German criminal investigation
related to the diesel emissions scandal has widened to include its
chairman.

The auto maker said prosecutors in the city of Braunschweig, near
Volkswagen headquarters, had widened their investigation of former
Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn and Herbert Diess, head of the
Volkswagen brand passenger cars division, to include Chairman Hans
Dieter Poetsch.

The investigators allege that the company's management willfully
kept the company's shareholders in the dark about the U.S. diesel
investigation and the potential financial risks.

The company said it has found no indication that management failed
to inform investors in a timely manner.

Before becoming chairman in September 2015, Mr. Poetsch was
Volkswagen's finance chief, responsible for communications with
financial markets.

He became chairman in a management shake-up in the wake of the
emissions scandal.

U.S. environmental authorities disclosed on Sept. 18, 2015, that
the company installed software on about 500,000 diesel-powered
vehicles in the U.S. that American authorities consider illegal.

Volkswagen later admitted to installing the software on nearly 11
million vehicles world-wide.

Volkswagen agreed in June to a $14.7 billion settlement with state
authorities and owners of 475,000 two-liter diesel vehicles
affected in the U.S.  The company is still in talks on a
settlement for owners of 85,000 vehicles with three-liter diesel
engines that were built by Audi.

Volkswagen and Audi management discussed the CO2 defeat-device
software in detail during a "Summer Drive" event in South Africa
in the second half of February 2013, according to one person
familiar with the situation and excerpts from the minutes of the
meeting, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

According to the minutes, Axel Eiser, the head of Audi's
powertrain division, said, "the shifting program needs to be
configured so that it runs at 100% on the treadmill but only 0.01%
with the customer."

Audi declined to make Mr. Eiser available for comment.

It isn't clear which Audi models might contain the newly
discovered software, which could raise fresh questions in Europe,
where regulators have been stricter on emissions of greenhouse
gases like CO2 than on nitrogen oxides.

Volkswagen insists that its software didn't violate European law.
In Germany, Volkswagen hasn't been charged with violating the law.

Criminal probes and civil lawsuits are instead focusing on whether
Volkswagen's management violated securities law or committed fraud
and should be held liable for damages suffered by investors and
consumers.

News of the U.S. investigation last year sparked a massive selloff
in Volkswagen shares, causing the company to lose 35% of its
market value by Sept. 22, when Volkswagen first warned investors
of financial risks stemming from the probe.
Mr. Winterkorn, then CEO, resigned under pressure the next day.

Mr. Diess has acknowledged the investigation but has declined to
comment.

Mr. Winterkorn has declined to comment through his attorney.

Volkswagen faces nearly $9 billion in damages claims from hundreds
of investors, including the California Public Employees'
Retirement System of the U.S., Norway's huge oil fund, and several
German states that hold Volkswagen shares.  The plaintiffs allege
that Volkswagen's top executives intentionally withheld
information from shareholders, who later suffered huge losses when
Volkswagen's shares plunged.

Volkswagen said no evidence has emerged to suggest that the
company's management failed to disclose the diesel issue to
markets as early as possible, reaffirming its belief that its
management board "duly fulfilled its disclosure obligation under
German capital markets law."


YASSER AWAAD: Faces Class Action Over False Epilepsy Diagnoses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Stamm, writing for Deadline Detroit, reports that
this medical nightmare is familiar locally: A doctor falsely
claimed that hundreds of patients have a serious disease,
according to a lawsuit.

Health care reporter Jay Greene reports on the case at Crain's
Detroit Business blog in a magazine-length blog post that exceeds
2,100 words:

Depositions are underway for a potential jury trial next year for
Yasser Awaad, M.D., a pediatric neurologist formerly with Oakwood
Hospital and Medical Center in Dearborn who is accused in a class
action lawsuit of falsely diagnosing epilepsy in hundreds of
children in Southeast Michigan in the mid-2000s.

Dr. Awaad has been compared by the attorneys of the children and
their families to Farid Fata, M.D., the Crittenton Hospital-based
oncologist who has been jailed and fined for health care fraud in
misdiagnosing cancer patients.

Attorneys for Dr. Awaad and Oakwood have denied all allegations
against the Egyptian-born doctor.

No criminal prosecution is involved, unlike in the nationally
covered case of Dr. Fata, dubbed "Dr. Evil" in media reports.  The
former physician, now 51, was arrested in 2013 and convicted by
jurors in mid-2015 of Medicare fraud for over-treating,
misdiagnosing or under-treating more than 550 patients so could
receiver more than $17 million in fees.  He's serving a 45-year
prison term.

Dr. Awaad, 62, has been licensed since 1994 and served his medical
residency in Detroit at Children's Hospital of Michigan and worked
at Oakwood from 2005-07.  He's now medical education consultant at
Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, which "restricts him from direct
patient care," according to Crain's.

Mr. Greene's deeply reported account describes the legal filing on
behalf of 247 families:

According to the class action lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit
Court, Dr. Awaad advised hundreds of children they had epilepsy
and needed to undergo a variety of unnecessary treatments and
procedures, and many were prescribed strong anti-epileptic
medicine with which they had negative side-effects.

Specialists who have reviewed the cases have stated in sworn
affidavits that they found some of Dr. Awaad's diagnoses and
treatments to be dubious or unnecessary, according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Awaad left Detroit in 2007 for the Middle East "while
allegations of poor patient care were swirling," the blog post,
says and came back two years ago.

The reporter, whose two requests to interview the defendant's
lawyer were unanswered, speaks with Brian McKeen, a downtown
Detroit medical malpractice attorney who's co-counsel for the
families seeking damages. He writes:

Mr. McKeen told Crain's that Dr. Awaad, Beaumont and Oakwood have
not been especially forthcoming in helping him and families
understand what happened to their misdiagnosed children. . . .

"This guy came to Oakwood (in 2005), bragged about a huge practice
in epilepsy at Children's Hospital and laid out an unrealistic
plan to generate revenue," Mr. McKeen said. "(Oakwood) put him in
business with an incentive-laden contract tied to billing, and
business shot through the roof."

Mr. McKeen . . . said more than 2,000 children were treated by Dr.
Awaad during about a four-year period. . . . "[He] diagnoses
everybody [98 percent] as having epilepsy whether they had it or
not."

Some children suffered from seizures, other lesser medical issues
or were just sleep deprived, the lawyer tells Mr. Greene.


ZEEKREWARDS: Seeks Court Approval of Claims Filing Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
the receiver for ZeekRewards.com wants court approval for
requiring victims to complete the necessary documentation on their
claims by Dec. 31 or forfeit their potential restitution.

Kenneth Bell says on www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com that 38,587
claimants are in that category.  The deadline for filing a claim
was in 2013.

Mr. Bell said in a filing on Nov. 3 that he has sent restitution
checks on more than 100,000 qualified claims.

Mr. Bell has said there is $92.6 million in a reserve account that
could be dispersed to victims who complete their requirement
release and tax statements.  The total money in reserve for the
38,587 claimant group is $42.2 million.

Forfeited funds would be released after Dec. 31 for additional
payments to claimants with qualified claims.

Mr. Bell said he sent a notice to affected victims on Nov. 1 and
will again for the final time on Dec. 1.

In August 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Rex
Venture Group LLC (RVG), Zeekler, ZeekRewards and founder Paul
Burks of raising more than $800 million through unregistered
securities, also known as penny auctions, and another $96 million
in subscription fees.

The Lexington companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million
customers, including more than 230,000 in the United States, with
47,000 of those in North Carolina.

In 2016, federal prosecutors raised the amount to $939 million
before Mr. Burks' criminal trial, calling it one of the largest
Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

As of Sept. 30, Mr. Bell has recovered $362 million and disbursed
$269.8 million to victims.  Many victims have received funds
accounting for between 60 percent and 70 percent of their losses.

Another $17 million could be dispersed to about 18,000 victims who
live outside the United States.

Only 530 victims have completed the process to receive a wire
financial transfer.

The total of recognized claims is $494 million, Mr. Bell said.

On July 21, a federal jury found Burks guilty of wire and mail-
fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and tax-fraud
conspiracy.

The wire and mail-fraud conspiracy charge, the mail-fraud charge
and the wire-fraud charge each carry a maximum prison term of 20
years and a $250,000 fine. The tax-fraud conspiracy charge carries
a maximum prison term of five years and a $250,000 fine.

The U.S. attorney's office said Burks will remain free on bond
while a sentencing date is set. It is possible Burks could spend
the rest of his life in prison.

In February 2015, Mr. Bell gained court permission to certify
about 9,400 "net winners" as defendants in a class-action lawsuit.
Mr. Bell has defined net winners as those who had a net gain of at
least $1,000. The amounts include interest owed by each
individual.

The overall net winner list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth
County, 105 from the Triad and Northwest N.C., and 390 statewide.

Mr. Bell has cautioned that although there is more than $200
million in judgments that could be awarded, "the actual amount
recovered by the receivership is likely to be substantially
lower."

Federal judge Graham Mullen has approved setting a trial date for
mid-February on Mr. Bell's attempt to retrieve a combined $669,365
from six net winners.  The requests were filed against Catherine
Parker, Leon Killam, Yong Sheng Wang, Brian Fussey, James
Macelwain and Mel-Ping Liang. Each was found in default Dec. 19,
2015.

Mr. Bell has called "pure fiction" an attempt by five other
participants to keep their net winnings even after Burks was found
guilty.

Named in the defendants' response are Aaron Andrews, Shara
Andrews, Durant Brockett, Rhonda Gates and Innovations Marketing
LLC.  None are from North Carolina. Brockett was listed as having
gained $1.72 million, Gates at $1.42 million, and Aaron and Shara
Andrews, doing business as Innovation Marketing LLC, at $1
million.

Bell has been granted permission to pursue up to $13.17 million in
assets from three financial institutions -- Payza, Payment World
LLC and VictoriaBank SA of Moldova.


* California Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Not Business-Friendly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Does business have a foe or friend at the California Supreme
Court? That's an important question, writes Seth Sandronsky for
the Northern California Record.  Much is at stake, as the Golden
State is the sixth largest economy in the world.

"Courts can be friendly or unfriendly to business," former
California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso told the Northern
California Record.  "Courts are influenced by their view of what
the law means and what is best (for) society."

Governors appoint justices to the state's high court, comprised of
a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices.  Current Democratic
Gov. Jerry Brown's newest trio of appointments tilted away from
business in a recent decision, said one attorney.

"With the addition of Justices (Goodwin H.) Liu, (Mariano-
Florentino) Cuellar, and (Leondra R.) Kruger (the author of
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co.)," attorney
Evan Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- of Meyer Brown in
Washington, D.C. blogged, "the current court may be among the
least business-friendly in decades."

The Nickerson case decision calculates a constitutional limit in a
ratio of punitive damages (beyond necessary compensation) of 10
times' compensatory damages (necessary compensation) in bad faith
insurance cases by in part including attorneys' fees (Brandt
fees).

"The California Supreme Court is sometimes business-friendly and
sometimes not," Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice
Association of California, told the Northern California Record.

She disagrees with Mr. Tager's view that the state's high court
tilts away from the interests of business now in contrast to
decades past.

Definitions matter in the language and usage of words in the
practice of law.  What does a term such as "business-friendly"
mean for the California high court?

UC Hastings Law Professor David Levine told the Northern
California Record the answer is in the eye of the beholder (e.g.,
whose interest are harmed or helped in high court decisions).
Mr. Levine said when business loses litigation it describes such
rulings as "business unfriendly."

"When a business wins a case then the court is business-friendly,"
Mr. Levine said.  It is a little like calling a court "activist,"
meaning how are you are using the term depends on your
perspective, Mr. Levine said.

In late July, the California Supreme Court released its opinion in
People ex rel. Kamala Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation.  In
that case, "the issue is whether an action under the UCL (unfair
competition law) against a trucking company for treating
individuals who drive trucks for them as 'individual contractors'
instead of 'employees' is preempted by the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA)," Stone said.

The California high court ruled that UCL preempts the FAAAA.
Companies such as the ride-hailing firm Uber also face litigation
over the status of drivers that labor as independent contractors,
not employees, across the U.S.

The California Supreme Court going back quite some time prior to
Gov. Brown has been quite protective of consumers' interest in
arbitration cases, Mr. Levine said.  That trend does not extend to
the highest court in the land though, he said.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has pushed very hard back against the
Golden State's high court decisions making it easier for
corporations to force individuals into arbitration agreements that
exclude class-action lawsuits in banking, health care and
telecommunications," Mr. Levine said.  Under Chief Justice
Roberts, the current U.S. Supreme Court is quite pro-business, he
said.

There are exceptions to pro-consumer protection decisions in the
Golden State's high court.

In the Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. decision of early August,
the California Supreme Court held the challenged arbitration
agreement valid in all respects, Stone said.

A California Supreme Court decision in late July held that class-
wide arbitration must be decided on a case-by-case basis in
Sandquist v. Lebo Auto., Inc.

In upcoming decisions, California's high court will rule on
employer liability for employees, their family and friends in
take-home asbestos cases.  Two cases of note are Haver v. BNSF
Railway Company, and Kesner v. Superior Court (Pneumo Abex, LLC).

The California Center for Jobs and the Economy and the University
of San Francisco Law School declined requests for comment from the
Northern California Record.

California high court's annual reports on appeals for the 2013-14
fiscal year do not show dramatic changes in its decisions for or
against business, Mr. Levine said.  For the 2013-2014 court year,
the Supreme Court filed opinions in a total of 33 civil matters
out of an overall figure of 83.

Four of the current seven California Supreme Court justices are
GOP governor appointees.  By contrast, the electorate in the
Golden State is a Democratic majority including the governor and
both houses of the state Legislature, putting the California GOP
at a disadvantage.

That the Golden State is rock-solid blue is beyond dispute in
2016, but such has not always been true, with implications for
California's high court.  In 1986, for instance, GOP Gov. George
Deukmajian backed the death penalty, a political wedge that helped
to seal the fate of then-Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, one
of three jurists who were ousted in an historic vote under the
state system of electoral judicial-retention.

"The high court took a clear turn to the right in terms of
protecting insurance companies and other businesses," he said.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown had appointed him, Chief Justice Rose
Bird and Associate Justice Joseph Grodin to the state Supreme
Court.  Thirty years ago the Republican Party was more powerful in
California, a shadow of its former self today in the face of
Democratic majority.

"I think Gov. Brown's appointees -- Justices Liu, Cuellar and
Kruger -- have been pretty reasonable," the CJAC's Stone said.  "I
would not say they differ tremendously from the general California
electorate."


* CPSC May Need to Review Product Safety Inspection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chiu, writing for Jobs & Hire, reports that authorities
may soon be looking into existing consumer product safety
inspections and regulations with the recent recalls of regular
household items that pose safety risks for the public.

This, after a recent voluntary recall of about 2.8 million Samsung
top-load washing machines which may cause harm to users operating
it due to a faulty top that could detach while in use. This is the
second massive recall by Samsung after it was reeling from the
battery problem of their recently released best-selling smartphone
model.

According to CNBC, there have already been 733 incidents reported
of excessive vibration during operation and the top being detached
from the main body.  At least nine cases of injuries have been
recorded ranging from impact injuries, broken jaw, and shoulder
injuries.

Industry safety experts believe that authorities should review
current practices and processes involving product safety
inspections and testing.  This could also mean having to review
current policies and regulatory practices governing it.
The Unite States Consumer Product Safety Commission, in their
website, indicates that aside from the washing machine recall,
there are already four different consumer products that have
already been highlighted for recall only this November.  The list
includes an off-road motorcycle due to crash hazards, an imported
glass knob allegedly causing lacerations, several dehumidifiers
due to burn and fire hazards and a bicycle model believed to cause
fall hazards and injury to the rider.

But the questions currently being raised is how come these
products were cleared for release to the market and could have
avoided causing damage and injuries in the first place.  Recently,
law firm Lieff Cabraser filed a class- action suit seeking damage
compensation against Samsung for the defective washing machines.

According to Statistics Brain, the most recalled products during
the past 12 months are home products ranging from electrical to
electronic household appliances, with the United States ranking
second from China by having the most number of product recalls per
country.  The top reason for product recalls is fire and fire-
related injuries, raising questions if product recalls are worth
it instead of nipping it in the bud.


* DOL's New Overtime Rule to Impact Companies, Non-Profits
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that employers and their counsel have plenty in the labor and
employment world to keep them busy at the moment -- from
navigating the U.S. Department of Labor's overtime rule to
managing new employment relationships that have emerged from the
sharing economy.

These matters and others were discussed in New York on Oct. 18 at
a conference held by employment law firm Epstein Becker & Green
that featured David Weil, administrator of the DOL's Wage and Hour
Division, and two U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials -- James
Plunkett, director of labor law policy, and Marc Freedman,
executive director of labor law policy.

Here are five takeaways from the conference:

1. Overtime rules are still contentious.

The DOL's new overtime rule, which goes into effect Dec. 1, raises
the income level below which workers must be paid overtime, thus
giving overtime to a DOL-estimated 4 million new workers.  The
rule is controversial.  The Oct. 18 session showed that the
Chamber, which sued in September to stop the rule, is still
strongly opposed.

Mr. Freedman emphasized the effect of the regulation on companies
and nonprofits -- which are also covered.  He said companies "will
have to give up some margin" and nonprofits "will have to
sacrifice mission," to pay more workers overtime.

Mr. Weil countered that the regulation leaves room for employers
to adjust hours worked and shift workload to comply with the new
rule.

"We're not in this to play some big 'gotcha' game," he said of the
DOL's attitude toward overtime compliance.

2. Business is still concerned about greater disclosure of
demographic and pay data.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's updated annual
EEO-1 form, which as of March 2018 will require employers to
disclose demographic and pay data about their workforce in 10 job
categories and 12 pay bands, is still causing agitation for
employers.

To demonstrate the compliance burden the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
sees in the new form, Mr. Plunkett took out a hard copy of the new
EEO-1 form and unrolled it until it took up most of the length of
the conference stage.

"This has been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act," he
said.  "Only in Washington, D.C., right?"

3. "Sub-regulations" may get companies down.

Regulatory burden on businesses also came up frequently, including
what the business group's Mr. Freedman calls "subregulatory" work
-- guidance and rules that are released by agencies without going
though the usual evaluation and comment periods.

Mr. Freedman said in an interview after the session that the next
president's administration "needs to be much more restrained on
how they use subregulatory activities."  He cited two examples of
these initiatives from the DOL -- one on employee
misclassification and another on joint employer relationships.

Mr. Weil released these two guidance documents to explain,
respectively, how the department will evaluate employee versus
independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and how it will test whether two employers should share joint
liability for labor law violations.

4. Labor Department continues scrutiny of "fissured" workplace.
DOL's Weil said his team will continue to focus on what he calls
the "fissured workplace" -- companies' use of subcontractors,
franchising and outsourcing to operate parts of its business.
Weil said that when a company uses a partner entity like a
staffing agency and exercises control over employees of that
agency they have "skin in the game."  "Therefore, we need to think
about [the company's] role as a party to the employment
relationship," he said.

5. Do "sharing economy" workers need a new classification?
The emergence of the "sharing economy" has raised questions about
employee classification for workers like on-demand drivers, who
have sued Uber Technologies Inc. over their status as independent
contractors.

Some have suggested a third category is necessary to accommodate
the unique tech platform-enabled work performed by those in the
sharing economy.  Mr. Weil disagrees.

"For a lot of what we see in this small space, [workers] are still
reasonably evaluated with the existing kinds of designations," Mr.
Weil said in an interview after the session.


* Federal Agencies Avoid Use of Formal Class Action Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sant'Ambrogio and Adam Zimmerman, writing for RegBlog,
report that federal agencies in the United States hear almost
twice as many cases each year as the federal courts.  But agencies
routinely avoid using tools that courts rely on to efficiently
resolve large groups of claims: class actions and other complex
litigation procedures.  As a result, across the administrative
state, cases often languish for years without remedy -- denying
justice for plaintiffs ranging from wounded veterans to students
duped by dishonest for-profit colleges.

A handful of federal administrative programs, however, have
quietly bucked this trend.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) created an administrative class action
procedure, modeled after rules that exist in federal court, to
resolve federal employees' "pattern or practice" claims of
discrimination before federal administrative judges.  The National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) uses "Omnibus
Proceedings" to pool together common claims that allege a vaccine
injured large groups of children.  And facing an "existential"
backlog of claims, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals
(OMHA) recently instituted a new "Statistical Sampling Initiative"
to resolve hundreds of common medical claims at a time by
statistically extrapolating the results of a few hearing outcomes.

Based on our prior work, the Administrative Conference of the
United States--a government body that issues guidance and policy
for all federal agencies--invited us to study administrative
programs that aggregate claims like these.  With this unusual
access to agency policymakers, staff and adjudicators, we took a
unique look inside administrative tribunals that use mass
adjudication in areas as diverse as employment discrimination,
mass torts, and health care.  Overall, we found that even though
most agencies enjoy substantial authority to aggregate cases, very
few do so.  Indeed, we identified more than 50 federal agencies
with rules permitting some form of aggregation, yet we found that
only a fraction of them used the formal class action or other
complex litigation procedures that they had on their books.  This
is somewhat surprising because agencies often enjoy even more
power than federal judges to group together common cases.
Agencies are not constrained by Article III standing requirements
or the Rules Enabling Act, which limit the ways federal courts use
class actions and other complex procedures.

That being said, when agencies do employ collective procedures,
they serve as vital tools for responding to rising case volumes
while promoting legal access.  Collective procedures can take a
variety of forms.  Agencies may, for instance, aggregate using
formal rules, like class actions, or they may aggregate through
more informal techniques, like assigning separate cases to the
same adjudicator, venue, or expedited docket.  In many cases,
agencies have recognized the power of these collective procedures,
finding that they enhance efficiency, improve consistency, and
promote legal access.  For example, although OMHA's statistical
sampling initiative is in its early stages, sampling will permit
OMHA to resolve thousands of similar claims by the same
appellants, sometimes involving the same beneficiary with only a
different service date, in a handful of proceedings. Since
launching the program, OMHA has been urged by medical providers to
expand opportunities to aggregate and settle large numbers of
claims.

Aggregate procedures also improve uniformity.  The EEOC's class
action procedure helps it resolve "pattern or practice" claims of
discrimination by federal employees.  The EEOC deems this process
indispensable in light of the volume of claims it processes each
year and the potential for inconsistent judgments.

Finally, aggregation has improved access to legal and expert
assistance by parties with limited resources, so that individuals
can pursue claims that otherwise would be difficult to bring on
their own.  For example, the NVICP allows any party alleging a
vaccine-related injury to benefit from the record developed in
large "test cases" by the most qualified experts and experienced
legal counsel.

Of course, aggregate adjudication poses challenges of its own.
Aggregating cases may stretch courts' capacity to administer
justice to many people, undermine the perceived "legitimacy" of a
process without individual hearings, and increase the consequences
of error.  But many programs we studied took steps to address
these concerns.  OMHA has cautiously piloted its statistical
sampling program to avoid replacing old backlogs with new ones.
The NVICP has relied on panels of adjudicators to reduce concerns
about having one decision maker decide thousands of cases.  Judges
at both the EEOC and the NVICP ensure that lawyers in big cases
possess the skill to represent large groups and that individuals
voluntarily participate in the process.

Other agencies considering class actions or other complex
procedures can learn from the experience of the EEOC, NVICP and
OMHA.  This summer, we proposed a series of recommendations to
federal agencies on the use of aggregation based on our research.
These recommendations were ultimately adopted by the
Administrative Conference of the United States in June 2016.

First, agencies should determine whether they have a sufficient
number of common claims to justify adopting rules governing
aggregation.  This may require developing a database to identify
and track similar cases.

Second, agencies can borrow rules from complex litigation in
federal courts to identify cases suitable for class treatment.
These may include rules to determine: whether enough cases exist
to justify aggregation and whether aggregating cases "materially
advances" the resolution of those cases.  In addition, agencies
should determine whether they can accomplish similar goals through
other tools, like informal rulemaking.

Third, agencies should ensure aggregate proceedings are
transparent and legitimate.  They should publish written policies
for aggregating cases, assign cases to experienced, independent
adjudicators, and ensure lawyers adequately represent different
interest groups.

Finally, agencies should consider how to harness aggregation to
coordinate and improve the way they make policy.  Large cases give
agencies an opportunity to discover problems that might escape
their attention in scattered, individual trials.  At a minimum,
agencies should publish their outcomes and consider whether to
codify them into more generally applicable rules.

Our look inside the way that agencies use complex procedures
offers important lessons for an often-overlooked bottleneck in
ordinary citizens' access to justice: the millions of cases stuck
in administrative courts.  Even as some fear that collective
procedures may stretch the limits of adjudication, our study
supports a very different conclusion: group procedures can form an
integral part of public regulation and the adjudicatory process
itself.


* New Jersey's Consumer Contract Statute to Impact Businesses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Renner, Esq. -- drenner@bakerlaw.com -- of Bakerhostetler,
and Kimberly Kalmanson, Esq., of Kalmanson Law Office, in an
article for Law.com, report that a little-known New Jersey statute
has been causing big headaches for businesses across the county.
The New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(the TCCWNA) was enacted as part of New Jersey's consumer
protection statutes. It was designed some 35 years ago to ensure
that consumers would not fall victim to contractual provisions
that were unenforceable.  Importantly, the TCCWNA reaches online
contracts, warranties and notices, increasing the number of suits
brought against nationwide companies in recent years.

The plaintiffs' bar typically brings these cases against
retailers, online service providers and others as purported class
actions.

But the pushback from the defense bar has been strong, as the
statute raises issues of whether there must be an underlying harm
for a TCCWNA claim to be viable, and relatedly, whether an
uninjured plaintiff has standing to pursue a TCCWNA claim.  The
statute also draws, and perhaps crosses, that fine line between a
seller's responsibility for providing an adequate disclosure on
the one hand and a seller's obligation and perhaps its right not
to provide legal advice.

The TCCWNA itself does not create consumer rights or seller
responsibilities.  Rather, it is a derivative statute that imposes
both actual and/or statutory damages ($100 per violation), in
addition to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs against
sellers for including provisions in their contracts, warranties
and notices that violate state or federal law.

The TCCWNA applies to "seller[s]," "lessor[s], creditor[s],
lender[s], or bailee[s]" of consumer products and services.  In
addition to demonstrating that some portion of a contract, notice
or warranty violates a state or federal law, to proceed under the
statute, a plaintiff must be a " consumer."  A consumer is defined
as:

   -- An individual who
   -- "Buy[s], lease[s], borrow[s] or bail[s]" any " money,
property or service;" where
   -- The money, property or services are "primarily for personal,
family or household purposes." The property can be tangible or
intangible.

The TCCWNA flips the "buyer beware" model on its head.  A recent
spate of litigation has resulted in a broad interpretation of the
statute.  As a result, sellers (and their counsel) must be aware
of the potential reach of the statute in order to protect against
litigation.  There are some basics all sellers in New Jersey, or
those selling on-line to New Jersey consumers, should know:

It isn't easy to contract your way out of the TCCWNA: The statute
proscribes waivers of consumer rights under the TCCWNA.  It also
prohibits any "consumer contract, notice or sign" from "stat[ing]
that any of its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or
inapplicable in some jurisdictions without specifying which
provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable
within the State of New Jersey."  In other words, sellers cannot
escape liability merely by including broad disclaimers stating
that unspecified provisions, for instance, may not be enforceable
in some jurisdictions (commonly seen in consumer contracts).

This is of particular import for online sellers, who often include
catch-all provisions to simultaneously protect themselves and
avoid a cost-prohibitive analysis of state-by-state law.  That
said, thoughtful contract language can be crafted that walks the
line between protecting the seller and avoiding the trap of the
TCCWNA.

No signature? Doesn't matter: Contracts, notices and warranties
need not be executed to be covered by the TCCWNA.  Online
purchases, even without a signed agreement, may be deemed to be
"consumer contracts" under the TCCWNA.  According to some courts,
a seller only must "present" a non-compliant writing to a consumer
for a violation to occur.  But such a view of the TCCWNA begs the
question of whether there must be an actual injury for a seller to
be liable under the statute.

Also under the category of "seller beware," courts have
interpreted the term "contract" or "notice" to include an array of
noncontractual writings.  For example, in Restaurant.com, Inc.,
the New Jersey Supreme Court found that printed terms of use on
consumer certificates for discounted restaurant meals constituted
"notices" under the TCCWNA.

"But it's not enforceable in court": Defendants have raised the
argument that, where provisions "would not be enforced by a court"
they "cannot form the basis of a TCCWNA violation."  This seems to
be a nonstarter.  The very purpose of the TCCWNA is to discourage
unenforceable provisions from being included in covered writings.
Thus, courts have held that unenforceable provisions"fall[s]
directly within the TCCWNA's ambit."

The net effect of the case law is that contracts subject to New
Jersey law must be carefully constructed.  Both common and
statutory laws are subject to the TCCWNA, and research is often
necessary to determine whether a contractual clause complies with
the law.  For this reason, statutes like the TCCWNA change the
game for online sellers in particular, erecting high barriers to
entry, in an arena where, generally, they do not otherwise exist.

From the perspective of the plaintiffs' bar, the TCCWNA serves a
critical purpose in enforcing consumer rights.  However, from a
defense perspective, the statute is replete with issues, not the
least of which is a consumer's standing to bring a TCCWNA suit
without having suffered any injury.


* Obama's BICE Rule to Impact Investors and Investment Advisers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Scaramucci, writing for Daily Times, reports that the
Obama administration's new fiduciary rule, finalised by the Labour
Department in April, will one day serve as a case study in
government overreach, a clear example of how faulty regulation can
have severe unintended consequences.

The new rule requires financial advisers and broker-dealers
handling retirement assets to either move to a fee-based
compensation model or, if they want to continue receiving variable
compensation such as commissions and 12b-1 fees, sign a Labour
Department "best-interest contract exemption," or BICE, with
clients.  The BICE stipulates advisers can only earn "reasonable
compensation" on non-fee-based products.  If those clients feel
their "best interests" have been violated, they can file class-
action lawsuits against advisory practices.  Firms need to be
compliant on broader provisions of the rule by April 2017 and
fully compliant by 2018.

Putting the word "fiduciary" in the title was a clever rhetorical
trick.  How could someone oppose a rule requiring financial
advisers to act in the best interests of clients? The problem is
the new rule doesn't actually protect investors.  It makes sound
retirement advice harder to get and more expensive.

Plaintiffs including the US Chamber of Commerce have filed six
separate lawsuits to prevent the new regulation from taking
effect.  They argue the rule would expose financial advisers to
significantly higher regulatory costs and litigation risks while
preventing small account holders from getting good, affordable
advice.  Out of an abundance of caution, most firms have
reluctantly begun the transition to fee-only accounts, but Morgan
Stanley bucked the trend by announcing it would take the risk of
continuing to offer client choice.

Here are a few of the undesirable effects the new rule will likely
have on investors and investment advisers:

Push investors excessively into passive index funds.  The
investment adviser's job is to create a long-term asset allocation
mix for clients producing the highest possible risk-adjusted
return-and the new fiduciary rule prevents him from doing that job
effectively.

Indexes have outperformed actively managed funds in the post
crisis era due to zero interest rates and quantitative easing,
leading to a surge in popularity for passive strategies.  Over the
past decade, passively managed index funds have nearly doubled
their market share to around 30% of 401(k) assets, contributing to
frothy valuations for indexed stocks.  The new fiduciary rule will
accelerate the growth of the indexing bubble by making it
impractical and uneconomical for advisers to allocate client money
to more-expensive actively managed funds-even if they are deemed
more appropriate based on market conditions.  As a result,
investors will likely be more defenceless than ever heading into
the next downturn.  Cost investors more money.  Like many federal
regulations, the new fiduciary rule will hurt the very people it
purports to protect. The rule is designed to save retirees money
by eliminating excessive commissions, but research shows it could
lead to tens of billions of dollars in new costs.  According to
Morningstar Inc., fee-based accounts often yield up to 60% more
than commission-based accounts, which could translate into another
$13 billion in revenue for the financial industry.

Punish small and independent registered investment advisers, or
RIAs.  Dodd-Frank was supposed to end "too-big-to-fail," but
instead unduly punished small community banks, which couldn't
afford significantly higher compliance costs, leading to further
consolidation in the industry.  The new fiduciary rule will have
the same effect on retirement planning.  Large wire houses will be
able to adapt and survive, but small and independent RIAs lacking
the resources to set up expensive new compliance systems based on
the 1,023-page rule will be forced to exit the business or pursue
mergers.

Punish small savers.  The increased threat of litigation over
commission-based accounts will cause most advisers to switch to
fee-based systems that don't make economic sense for accounts with
low balances.  Advisers will drop smaller accounts, forcing less-
wealthy individuals to use robo advisers, whose technology is
unproven in more volatile environments.

Financial crises and market crashes are often the result of
overregulation creating bad incentives.  Economist Milton Friedman
once said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and
programs by their intentions rather than their results."  The
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, for example, aimed to reduce
discriminatory lending practices against low-income households,
but instead paved the way for the housing crisis by forcing banks
to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.  The
Affordable Care Act has made insurance premiums significantly more
expensive by reducing competitiveness in the health-care industry.
The Obama administration's new fiduciary rule is the latest
example of onerous regulation that may have good intentions but
will lead to disastrous outcomes.  Let the free market dictate
where assets flow. Firms putting client interests first thrive
organically in a capitalist system.


* SCOTUS Set to Tackle Issues on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Bryant, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the current eight-member U.S. Supreme Court is not agreeing to
hear many highly contested cases, including class actions, where a
4-4 disagreement might be expected.  One enormously important
class action issue, however, is likely to be considered soon: Can
employers use mandatory arbitration clauses in employment
contracts to ban workers' collective and class actions?

That's the basic question presented in four cases now up for
review.  All involve employees claiming they were cheated out of
overtime pay.  And all involve mandatory arbitration clauses that
forbid employees from bringing collective or class actions.

First, in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, the
NLRB says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred
when it held the company could use a mandatory arbitration clause
in its form employment contract to prohibit all workers at more
than 1,000 stores in 21 states from pursuing collective actions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class actions in federal
and state court.  The clause says each worker has to proceed
individually and alone.

The NLRB believes that violates Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA), which gives employees "the right to . . .
engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of . . .
mutual aid and protection." The Supreme Court has previously said
these "concerted activities" include actions pursued in
"administrative and judicial forums."

Because the NLRB is charged with enforcing America's labor laws,
its interpretation is entitled to substantial deference.  That
interpretation underscores what's at issue: "the right to engage
in collective action -- including collective legal action -- is
the core substantive statutory right protected by the NLRA and the
foundation on which the Act and Federal labor policy rest."

Second, in Epic Systems v. Lewis, brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin law, Epic is challenging the Seventh
Circuit's refusal to enforce the collective and class action ban
in the mandatory arbitration clause in its form employment
agreement.

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in AT&T Mobility
v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant,
Epic argues that arbitration agreements must be "enforced
according to their terms" unless the Federal Arbitration Act's
mandate has been "overridden by a contrary federal command."
Because the NLRA contains no such command, Epic claims, its
mandatory arbitration clause prohibiting joint actions must be
enforced.

Third, in Morris v. Ernst & Young, the accounting firm is asking
the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision agreeing
with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Epic.

In both cases, the courts rejected the employers' assertions that
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) effectively overrides the NLRA.
Both courts found no conflict between the statutes and noted that
the FAA's savings clause says arbitration clauses are enforceable
except "upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract."  Since the NLRA exists "at law" and
is grounds "for the revocation of any contract," the courts held
the FAA's savings clause confirms that concerted and class action
bans in mandatory arbitration clauses cannot be enforced.

Fourth, in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture, a collective and class
action under FLSA and New York law, the plaintiff says the Second
Circuit erred by enforcing a collective and class action ban in an
employment contract's mandatory arbitration clause.

ARGUING THAT A 1932 LAW APPLIES

In addition to the NLRA, the plaintiff, Connie Patterson, relies
on the Norris-La Guardia Act, enacted in 1932, seven years after
the FAA. Sections 2 and 3 nullify "any undertaking or promise"
that conflicts with workers' rights to "be free from the
interference, restraint, or coercion of employers" in pursuing
"concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or
protection."

Section 3 says any such undertaking or promise "shall not be
enforceable in any court of the United States and shall not afford
any basis for the granting of equitable or legal relief by any
court."  Section 15 says, "All acts and parts of acts in conflict
with the permissions of this chapter are repealed." Based on
these, Patterson argues that the FAA was "overridden by a contrary
federal command" -- the Norris-La Guardia Act.

One other point may affect how the Supreme Court rules on this
issue: the distinction the NLRA is drawing between procedural and
substantive rights.

In all of these cases, the NLRA argues, unlike in any previous
case, the class and collective action bans violate the plaintiffs'
substantive rights: the "right to concerted action" created by
Section 7 of the NLRA, "the NLRA's only substantive provision."
They are, the NLRA maintains, like "contracts providing that
employees can be fired on the basis of age contrary to the ADEA or
will not be paid the minimum wage dictated by the FLSA."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Attys OK'd Pro Hac Vice Practice in "Waugh"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACK JUNIOR WAUGH, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED
AUTO PARTS, INC., el al., Defendants, No. 1:16 CV 310 (W.D.N.C.),
Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, issued an
order dated October 21, 2016, granting Christopher B. Major's
application for admission to practice pro hac vice of Moffatt M.
McDonald, W. David Conner, and Scott E. Frick, and that they are
admitted to practice, pro hac vice, before the Bar of the court
while associated with Christopher B. Major.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Mr. McDonald is
available at http://tinyurl.com/jc569jlfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Mr. Conner
http://tinyurl.com/zw8tjf2is available at from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Mr. Frick is
available at http://tinyurl.com/zzry4rsfrom Leagle.com.

Jack Junior Waugh, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone,
Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Jack Junior Waugh, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy
Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis
Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP &
William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates
LLP.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Fluor Constructors International, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt
G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott
E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ray
Kiger, Smith Anderson & Kirk Gibson Warner, Smith Anderson.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew Patrick
McGuire, Alston & Bird LLP & Heather B. Adams, Alston & Bird LLP.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Grinnell, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
T. Hawkins, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C..

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B. Oakley,
Poole Brooke Plumlee PC.

Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until May to Perfect Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated November 10, 2016, enlarged Crane
Co.'s time to perfect appeals to the May 2017 Term in the New York
City Asbestos Litigation cases captioned ACEVEDO, v. A.P. GREEN
INDUSTRIES, INC.; LIMAN, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP.; MARKOU, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP.; BRESCHARD v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS, CO.; and MALDONADO v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO.,
Motion Nos. M-5062, M-5063, M-5066, M-5067, M-5069 2016 NY Slip Op
90961(U)(N.Y. App. Div.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Junked as Defendant in "Johnson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued an
order dated November 7, 2016, a full-text copy of which is
available at http://tinyurl.com/zjvhxu8from Leagle.com,
dismissing, without prejudice, Georgia-Pacific LLC, f/k/a Georgia-
Pacific Corporation, as defendant in the case captioned MARCELLA
JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiff, v. PUGET SOUND COMMERCE CENTER, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02664-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP.

Richard Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell
LLP.

Marcella Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Devin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Tiffaney Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center Inc, Defendant, represented by Demian
David Steele, Yaron & Associates, George D. Yaron, Yaron &
Associates & Michael C. Guasco, Yaron & Associates.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Dean
Sentlinger, Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie
LLP.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company on behalf of its suspended
insured Associated Insulation of California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Michael Eric Sandgren, Selman Breitman LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Attys OK'd Pro Hac Vice Practice in "Hanson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LISA HANSON, Individually, and as Executrix
of the Estate of DELMONT D. HANSON, Deceased, and TONY HANSON,
Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, a/k/a Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing
Company, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-328 (W.D.N.C.),
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, granted Christopher B. Major's application for admission
to practice pro hac vice of Moffatt G. McDonald, W. David Conner,
and Scott E. Frick, and they are admitted to practice, pro hac
vice, before the Bar of the court while associated with
Christopher B. Major.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 3, 2016, with respect
to Mr. McDonald is available at http://tinyurl.com/j5kuph7from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 3, 2016, with respect
to Mr. Conner is available at http://tinyurl.com/h453hwdfrom
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 3, 2016, with respect
to Mr. Frick is available at http://tinyurl.com/z2k4nowfrom
Leagle.com.

Lisa Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham, Wallace
& Graham.

Tony Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham, Wallace
& Graham.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

American Biltrite, Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric T. Hawkins,
Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Domco Products Texas, L.P, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Pfizer, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Allowance of Appeal in "Campbell" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, issued an
order dated November 2, 2016, denying the petition for allowance
of appeal in the case captioned BETTY WELLES CAMPBELL, EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL P. CAMPBELL, SR., AND BETTY WELLES
CAMPBELL, IN HER OWN RIGHT v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, IN ITS OWN
RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE CLARK CONTROLLER COMPANY
AND A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; AGCO
CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ALLIS CHALMERS
CORPORATION; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.; AJAX MAGNETHERMIC CORPORATION;
ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION; AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION; AMERICAN
STANDARD COMPANY, INC.; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., ARMSTRONG
PUMPS, INC.; AQUA-CHEM, INC., CLEAVER-BROOKS DIVISION; AURORA PUMP
COMPANY; BEAZER EAST, INC. IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR TO
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. AND OTHER RELATED COMPANIES INCLUDING THIEM
CORPORATION, BEAZER USA, INC., AND BEAZER, PLC; BLACKMER PUMP
COMPANY; BW/IP INTERNATIONAL INC., F/K/A BORG WARNER INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BYRON
JACKSON PUMPS; CASHCO, INC.; CATALYTIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; CBS
CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, A PENNSYVLANIA CORPORATION, F/K/A
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; CHAMPLAIN CABLE CORPORATION, AS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HERCULES INC; COLUMBUS McKINNON;
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY; COPES-VULCAN, INC; CRANE CO.; CROWN
CORK & SEAL COMPANY; DEZURIK, INC.; DRAVO CORPORATION;
DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION; EATON CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO CUTLER HAMMER, INC. EICHLEAY CORPORATION; ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS; ELSA BENSON, INC; EXELON CORPORATION; FLOWSERVE
U.S., INC., F/K/A FLOWSERVE FSD CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR TO DURCO
INTERNATIONAL, DURIRON COMPANY AND DURAMETALLIC; FMc CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ITS FORMER PEERLESS PUMPS; FOSECO,
INC.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION;
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS,
INC; GREENE TWEED & COMPANY; GRINNELL LLC; HEDMAN RESOURCES
LIMITED; HONEYWELL, INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., FORMERLY
KNOWN AS ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE
BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A IMO DELAVAL, INC.,
F/K/A TRANSAMERICAN DELAVAL, INC., F/K/A DELAVAL TURBINE, INC.,
DELAVAL TURBINE, INC., DEVALCO CORPORATION; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS
CORPORATION F/K/A CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL RAND; INSUL
COMPANY, INC.; ITT CORPORATION, F/K/A ITT INDUSTRIES; JOY
TECHNOLOGIES F/K/A JOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY D/B/A JOY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.;
MALLINCKRODT US LLC, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
TO IMcERA GROUP, INC., AND INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND CHEMICAL
CORPORATION, AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO E.J. LAVINO; MARLEY
COOLING TOWER; McCANN SHIELDS PAINT COMPANY; McCARLS, INC.;
McJUNKIN RED MAN CORPORATION, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO McJUNKIN CORPORATION; MET-PRO CORPORATION AND ITS DEAN
PUMP DIVISIONL METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY A/K/A
METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY; MILWAUKEE VALVE COMPANY; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY; MINNOTTE CONTRACTING CORPORATION; MORGAN
ENGINEERING, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
ALLIANCE MACHINE COMPANY; NAGLE PUMPS, INC; OAKFABCO, INC.;
OGLEBAY NORTON COMPANY, AND ITS DIVISION FERRO ENGINEERING; OWENS-
ILLINOIS, INC.; PHELPS DODGE INDUSTRIES, INC; POWELL VALVE
COMPANY; POWER PIPING; PREMIER REFRACTORIES, INC., F/K/A ADIENCE,
INC, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ADIENCE COMPANY, LP, AS SUCCESSOR TO
BMI, INC.; RILEY STOKER CORPORATION; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., IN
ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ALLEN BRADLEY;
SAFETY FIRST INDUSTRIES, INC., IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST TO SAFETY FIRST SUPPLY, INC.; SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES,
INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS NORTON COMPANY; SARGENT & LUNDY, LLC;
SPIRAX SARCO, INC; SQUARE D COMPANY; TASCO INSULATION, INC.,
F/K/A/ THE ASBESTOS SERVICE COMPANY; THE ELECTRIC CONTROLLER AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; THIEM CORPORATION, AND ITS DIVISION,
UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES; TRECO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., F/K/A
THE RUST ENGINEERING COMPANY; TYCO FLOW CONTROL COMPNAY, LLC AS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO CROSBY VALVE; UNIFRAX CORPORATION F/K/A
CARBORUNDUM; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION AND ITS LINDE DIVISION;
UNITED CONVERYOR CORPORATION; UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION;
WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATION, F/K/A RAYTHEON ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS, INC., AND ALL ITS DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES, INCLUDING
THE BADGER COMPANY, INC., WHITING CORPORATION; YARWAY CORPORATION;
YEOMANS CHICAGO CORPORATION, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO MORRIS PUMPS, INC., ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC., A/K/A ERIE
CITY IRON WORKS PETITION OF: MARK CAMPBELL, SAMUEL CAMPBELL JR.,
THOMAS CAMPBELL, CHRISTINE NOONAN AND DEBORAH SULLIVAN, No. 304
WAL 2016 (Pa. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/goprh95from Leagle.com.

Timothy P. Creech, Creech & Creech LLC, for Mark Campbell,
Petitioner.

Timothy P. Creech, Creech & Creech LLC, for Samuel Campbell,
Petitioner.

Timothy P. Creech, Creech & Creech LLC, for Thomas Campbell,
Petitioner.

Timothy P. Creech, Creech & Creech LLC, for Christine Noonan,
Petitioner.

Timothy P. Creech, Creech & Creech LLC, for Deborah Sullivan,
Petitioner.

Thomas Jude Gohsler, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, for
Department of Revenue, Respondent.

John R. Kane, Savinis & Kane L.L.C., for Betty Welles, Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Present in 344 Kent Schools
-----------------------------------------------------
Kent Live reported that hundreds of Kent schools operate in
buildings containing potentially lethal asbestos.

The county council has confirmed the cancer-causing substance is
present at 344.

These include everything from infant and special schools to sixth
forms and pupil referral units.

Exposure to asbestos, when disturbed, can cause mesothelioma, a
terminal lung disease.

Charlotte Perkins, a solicitor in asbestos related injuries at
specialist legal firm Hugh James, said: "The teaching profession
has been particularly hit by this terrible illness. Since 1980,
228 teachers have been diagnosed with mesothelioma having
previously worked at schools throughout the UK."

Claims against the council

To date 12 Kent County Council employees have brought cases
against the council.

It has admitted liability on eight of these claims, paying out
GBP842,958 as a result.

Kent County Council says it carries out asbestos management
surveys on a rolling three year programme, during which all
suspected asbestos-containing material is recorded and samples
taken away for analysis.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request, the authority
said: "All details are recorded in the asbestos survey report that
becomes the site management plan that is delivered to the school.

"On receipt of the site management plan the schools are then
responsible for managing their own site for the next three years
and this includes updating the management plan to reflect any
changes. The management plans are required to be available to any
contractor that visits the school to enable both the contractor
and the school to take the appropriate action and safety
precautions when planning and carrying out work on the premises."

The 344 schools listed at http://tinyurl.com/jdy5qfcdo not
include academies and independents, which are responsible for
their own asbestos management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over Half of Liverpool Schools May Have Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Collingwood, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that over
half of schools in Liverpool are thought to have asbestos
containing materials within them it has been revealed.

In September 2016, 51 out of 87 schools in the area had been
identified by Liverpool City Council as potentially having
asbestos within them, or 59%.

That figure has remained unchanged since the academic year
September 2014 to July 2015, when there were 56 schools thought to
contain asbestos and five of them were rebuilt, involving the
complete demolition of the old asbestos containing buildings.

Asbestos is a fibrous rock found in many materials including
insulation, ceiling tiles and boilers in buildings built before
2000.

Despite being banned from use in new buildings, asbestos is
responsible for around 5,000 deaths a year.

Whilst there is no risk to health if the asbestos containing
materials are untouched, if they are damaged or disturbed by
things like construction work, toxic fibres are released into the
air which can cause cancer and other serious lung diseases.

During the three year period from September 2013 to September
2016, the council spent GBP74,820.60 on directly removing asbestos
from schools.

But that figure doesn't include the cost of work carried out by
contractors or direct removal action by schools.

A Liverpool City Council spokesman said: "The clear advice from
health and safety experts is that asbestos is better left
encapsulated if it is in good condition and unlikely to be
disturbed, and that the risk is managed. Proactively removing
asbestos potentially creates more risks.

"When work is being carried out that may disturb asbestos there is
always a comprehensive survey conducted to manage the risk, and if
it does become a risk its removal is treated as a priority and by
suitably qualified experts.

"Schools manage their asbestos risk individually, and our own
schools are audited on it every three years.

"Asbestos in Liverpool schools is reducing as a result of
rebuilding and replacing more than 30 schools since 1999."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk in Seaman Hard to Quantify
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
thousands of people who worked aboard commercial ships may be at
higher risk for developing malignant mesothelioma.

Unfortunately, although the mesothelioma risk for merchant seamen
has been acknowledged since the 1970s, there is still little
information on how high the risk may be.

That news comes from a new report on commercial seamen and
mesothelioma published in the journal Inhalation Toxicology.

Mesothelioma Risk and Commercial Seamen

Seamen are thought to be more prone to pleural mesothelioma
because of exposure to asbestos, a common but toxic mineral used
primarily as an insulator in many ships built in the early part of
the 20th century.

By the mid-1900s, cases of malignant mesothelioma had begun to
arise in workers in asbestos product manufacturing and asbestos
mining and milling industries.

But, according to David Dodge and Barbara Beck of the
environmental and risk sciences consulting firm, Gradient, the
danger of asbestos exposure on commercial ships was largely
ignored for several more decades.

"We found that attention to the potential health risk of asbestos
to merchant seamen began in the mid- to late- 1970s and early
1980s," write Dodge and Beck.

Asbestos and Mesothelioma: Making the Connection

Although tests found the level of asbestos exposure during routine
repairs aboard commercial ships was likely to be low, it was
enough to send up red flags for people who worked on these ships.

"Responses to this evolving information served to warn seamen and
the merchant shipping industry and led to increased precautions
regarding asbestos exposure," conclude Dodge and Beck.

As rates of lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma among merchant
seamen began to climb in the 1990s, some researchers finally began
to make a connection between shipboard asbestos exposure and
cancer.

Asbestos Use in Ships

Asbestos, which was used throughout both commercial and naval
vessels, is a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral. When it becomes
airborne, the fibers can lodge in body tissues, causing irritation
and inflammation that can eventually cause mesothelioma.

Toxicology experts now know that there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos. People who built both commercial and naval
ships, sailed on them, repaired them, or decommissioned them, all
face a potentially higher lifetime risk of pleural mesothelioma.

It can take decades for mesothelioma to develop but, once it does,
it is extremely difficult to treat and there is no cure. An
italian study published earlier this year found that the risk of
malignant mesothelioma among shipyard workers remains high even
thirty years after their jobs ended.

Even if they are unaware of specific instances of asbestos
exposure, people who have worked aboard older commercial or
military ships should be aware of the symptoms of mesothelioma and
should have regular medical exams.

Source:

Doge, DG and Beck, BD, Historical state of knowledge of the health
risks of asbestos posed to seamen on merchant ships, November 10,
2016, Inhalation Toxicology, Epub ahead of print


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Hopes for New Day With New Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
asbestosis lawsuit that originally found for the plaintiff but was
overturned on appeal, has seen the appellate ruling upheld after
the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida
refused to revisit its ruling.

Thus, any hope for asbestosis compensation for the plaintiff will
hinge on the outcome of a new trial ordered for defendant R. J.
Reynolds. A co-defendant, Crane Co. was granted a verdict's entry.

The original asbestosis claim was filed by plaintiff Richard
DeLisle, a laborer diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma, a form of
asbestosis disease. The plaintiff charged that his adverse health
problems hinged on two scenarios: working with gaskets
manufactured by Crane and alleged to contain asbestos, and a
smoking habit involving Kent cigarettes, a brand manufactured by
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The allegation was that Kent cigarettes
were manufactured with filters that contained asbestos. DeLisle
claimed in his asbestosis lawsuit that he smoked Kent brand
cigarettes through the early, to mid-1950s.

A lower court awarded $8 million in asbestosis compensation to
DeLisle. R.J. Reynolds and Crane appealed the verdict, and this
past September the Florida appellate court overturned the lower
court's ruling. Earlier this month, the same court refused to
revisit its original ruling of September 14. Crane can now move
beyond the accusations while R.J. Reynolds will face a new trial,
allowing for some hope for the asbestosis lung disease victim to
realize some financial compensation.

There were numerous testimonies by expert witnesses in the
original trial, according to court records. However, the appellate
court determined that for the majority of expert testimony, there
was insufficient data to support various claims made by the expert
witnesses.

One expert witness, identified as Dr. James Dahlgren and a medical
doctor with a specialty in occupational and environmental
medicine, had testified that chrysotile asbestos allegedly
associated with the gaskets manufactured by Crane Co. had
contributed to the plaintiff's asbestosis disease.

While Dahlgren's testimony satisfied the lower court, the
appellate court found insufficiencies. "There was no data
presented at the hearing showing that chrysotile asbestos in low
levels is associated with mesothelioma. Indeed, the other experts
testifying for DeLisle all rejected such an association," the
appellate court said. "Dr. Dahlgren's testimony was more of the
nature of ipse dixit, i.e., that it should be reliable merely
because he is an expert. This is insufficient to satisfy Daubert."
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 of 1993).

The original testimony of two other expert witnesses were
dismissed by the appellate court in similar fashion, given a lack
of data by which to verify, or disprove claims made by the expert
witnesses.

The plaintiff's asbestos lawyer attempted to have the appellate
court revisit their ruling of September 14 through an en banc
rehearing, but the appellate court refused. The Court did note,
however, in its subsequent ruling that in its view the $8 million
originally awarded to the plaintiff was "substantially higher"
than any previous award for a mesothelioma, or asbestosis victim.

The plaintiff's asbestosis lawsuit lives on however, with a new
trial ordered for R.J. Reynolds. The case is Crane et al. v.
DeLisle et al., Case Numbers 4D13-4351 and 4D14-146, in the Fourth
District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards EUR200,000 to Heirs of Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Times of Malta reported that the heirs of a man whose death
was attributed solely to the cancer caused through his contact
with asbestos because of his job were awarded over EUR200,000 in
damages by the courts.

Paul Pullicino had passed away, aged 46, in 2010, following a
battle with cancer. The man had been employed at the government
garage in Kirkop between November, 1981 and January, 1983 as a
full time trainee /apprentice. The court heard how during this
period, his work consisted in inspecting vehicles, servicing
machines and changing brake-pads and clutches.

Since the brake linings contained asbestos, Mr Pullicino inhaled
asbestos powder which, the court observed, has been scientifically
been proved to be a direct cause of cancer.

The court noted that the victim had never been given adequate
protective gear to avoid inhaling the toxic and carcinogenic
fumes.

Throughout his employment, Mr Pullicino worked on a shift basis
alternating between three days of labour in the garage and two
days of academic training.

The court observed that after quitting the job, the victim had
taken up other jobs which never again placed him in contact with
the deadly asbestos.

Mr Pullicino was admitted to hospital in 2008 complaining of
respiratory problems. A biopsy had revealed he was suffering from
mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused exclusively by asbestos
inhalation.

After being admitted to Boffa hospital and undergoing
chemotherapy, the patient succumbed to his illness in 2010.

In calculating compensation, the First Hall Civil Court presided
by Mr Justice Silvio Meli, considered that the patient had spent
over EUR8,000 in medical treatment, even though he had received
assistance from the Malta Community Chest Fund.

The court awarded his heirs, represented by Dr Joseph Zammit
Maempel, the sum of EUR200,000 by way of damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found During Stratford Highway Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
Connecticut State Department of Transportation (CTDOT) announced
asbestos was discovered during the Interstate 95 Exit 33 highway
project. All construction and roadside maintenance activities in
the surrounding stretch of the interstate are being prohibited
"until the situation can be more completely assessed."

The asbestos waste was caused by Raymark Industries -- a
manufacturer of auto brakes, clutch discs, and other friction
components. Unfortunately, the contaminated soil was used as a
fill in several areas around Stratford, Connecticut.

"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," said DOT.

Residents are worried about the dangerous substance becoming
disturbed during the construction. Over 2,000 signatures were
collected by Stratford Action for the Environment (SAFE) to fight
against the project.

"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," said Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator Curt Spalding.

"Fortunately, in September, the 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," said Spalding.

Currently, a bedrock is keeping the asbestos from being disturbed,
so residents say they'll need volatile organic compound units if
the project continues to move forward as officials expect it will
next year.

According to DPH Commissioner Dr. Raul Pino, "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."

Moving forward, a testing and monitoring program will be in place
to measure asbestos levels in the air around Exit 33. DOT and the
EPA will coordinate with the Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (DEEP), the Department of Labor,
ConnOSHA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to respond to the asbestos soil contamination.

"The air and ground monitoring is a prudent and precautionary
strategy. In the coming weeks, motorists may see crews along the
highway conducting these tests," said DOT Commissioner James P.
Redeker.

"To date, we are not aware of any adverse effects to anyone in
this vicinity. We will continue to advise workers and the people
of Connecticut as developments warrant," said Redeker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Finds Asbestos in Corkman Pub Rubble
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Jefferson, writing for The Herald Sun, reported that
asbestos from an illegally demolished Carlton pub remains at a
western suburbs property declared safe by the Environment
Protection Authority Victoria just days earlier.

In an embarrassment to the EPA, it says building sheet fragments
from the Corkman Irish pub containing asbestos remain in rubble at
Cairnlea.

This was despite the EPA declaring the site safe following an
inspection.

EPA Executive Director of Regional Services, Damian Wells, says
the EPA has now been forced to revise its earlier advice following
new information.

Mr Wells said EPA received an asbestos clearance letter from the
solicitors of the site occupiers last Friday, produced by
specialist asbestos contractors, confirming asbestos was safely
removed from two stockpiles of material allegedly taken from the
Corkman Irish Pub.

"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," Mr Wells said.

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

Mr Wells said the site owner must maintain a covering over rubble
at the site until all asbestos material is safely removed.

This was despite saying that a covering was no longer required
because the asbestos risk was no longer present.

The notices issued by the EPA also require 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 the local primary school and surrounding
residents before any asbestos material is removed.

In addition, the site owner must inspect the property daily to
ensure the waste covering remains free of rips and tears and
completely covers the rubble.

"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," Mr Wells said.

EPA will issue the site owner with a clean up notice requiring all
waste to be removed from the Cairnlea site in coming weeks.

The EPA and Brimbank Council will hold an information session
tonight at the Cairnlea Town Centre shopping centre, on Furlong
Rd, from 4-7pm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Fined $21,600 for Asbestos Project
----------------------------------------------------------
KATU.com reported that the owners of a Portland building are
facing a more than $21,000 fine for letting an unlicensed
contractor to take care of some asbestos work, the Department of
Environmental Quality said.

According to the DEQ, John Reilly and Jennifer Doherty-Reilley
hired an unlicensed contractor for an asbestos abatement, and
openly kept waste that contained asbestos at their home in
Portland.

The Reillys were fined $21,600 for the infraction and cited for
failing to submit an asbestos abatement project notification at
least 10 days before the project started.

According to DEQ, the Reillys have appealed the penalty.

From state officials:

   "DEQ requires building owners and project managers to have an
asbestos survey performed before a renovation or demolition. Such
work can release asbestos fibers into the air and expose workers
and the public to asbestos. When released into the air, asbestos
fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung cancer and
other illnesses. There is no known safe level of exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Senator Diagnosed With Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Bagwell, writing for Newschannel9.com, reported that from
the dirtiest city in America to one of the most livable,
Chattanooga's turnaround story is well known.

Part of the city's renaissance has involved developers breathing
new life into old buildings. Many of those old buildings turned
out to be full of airborne poison.

NewsChannel 9's Kelsey Bagwell began digging into the problem when
she first brought us the story of asbestos, discovered in the
downtown library back in August.

Since then, she's learned more about the effects of ingesting that
poison from a man who is now paying with his life.

That man is Ray Albright, and you may remember his name. He shaped
legislation for years as a vital member of Chattanooga's
delegation in the Tennessee General Assembly. Albright's run as a
Tennessee legislator came to a close in 1994.

His exposure to asbestos in the workplace decades before that now
leaves him struggling to fill his lungs.

"I planned my life, my wife and I did, to have a good life. A life
that we wouldn't have any problem. It just doesn't work out," he
says.

In 1953, Albright took a job at Combustion Engineering to provide
for his growing family. For nineteen years, he made covers for
boilers by cutting steel with a band saw; a process that spewed
deadly dust into the air.

"It was so thick, you couldn't see ten feet in front of you,
hardly," he adds.

Albright had no idea that thick dust contained asbestos. He says
the other workers didn't either. They didn't even know what
asbestos was. But forty years later, Albright was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a type of cancer in the lungs.

"Asbestos was the cause of this. And, you don't know it, but forty
years later, you find out what you were exposed to was extremely
dangerous."

You can hear the struggle to speak, to breathe, in his voice.

Albright believes the management at Combustion knew about the
dangers of asbestos, and there is reason to believe he's right.
The U.S. Department of Labor has fined other companies millions of
dollars for exposing workers without protection.

Albright is one of hundreds of clients who have sued Combustion
and others. He's represented by attorney Jimmy Rodgers.

"They're in enjoyment of retirement, enjoying their grand kids and
traveling, or that's their ideas, typically. Then they get hit
with that type of diagnosis," says Rodgers.

Albright isn't alone. Chattanooga's former life as a manufacturing
city has resulted in hundreds of cases like his.

"There was just a large concentration of industrial job sites,"
Rodgers adds.

Asbestos wasn't just a problem on the assembly line. For decades,
it was also used to insulate and fire-proof buildings. Most of the
city's older structures have it, according to removal expert,
David Bashor.

"Pretty much from the 20's through the 70's, almost all the
buildings had some form of asbestos in them. Almost always," says
Bashor.

When intact, asbestos isn't a hazard. But when it's broken into
dust, like during a renovation, it becomes dangerous. Bashor's job
is to remove the asbestos before renovation begins. Working on
Chattanooga's buildings keeps him busy.

"Chattanooga is an older city. So older cities are going to have
higher amounts of asbestos present," he says.

There are now strict rules from the Environmental Protection
Agency about asbestos.

But for many already diagnosed, it's decades too late.

Albright admits he can't properly say the name of the disease that
is taking his life.

"If I stay around long enough, I'll learn to pronounce that
thing," he jokes.

He's filed lawsuits to hold his former employers accountable for
cutting short the "good life" he planned for himself many years
ago.

"There's no cure for what I have. And you're going to die. It's
just a matter of time," he says.

Albright's case is still pending. He tells us his doctor estimates
he has another six months to live.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Lodged For Asbestos Disease Pay Down
------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Slater, writing for Creamer Media's Mining Weekly, reported
that during the financial year to February 29, the Kgalagadi
Relief Trust (KRT) paid out 35 claims, totalling R3.42-million, to
persons who have contracted illnesses related to exposure to
asbestos stemming from South African mines.

Workers who were employed by or lived near qualifying asbestos
mines, or the families of mineworkers who have died of
mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer, could claim for
compensation.

Speaking at KRT's annual general meeting earlier this week,
chairperson Brian Gibson, who succeeded Phiroshaw Camay, who
passed away on October 1, said there had been a notable increase
in the evolution of some claims previously brought to the KRT.
Of the 35 claims paid out by the KRT during the financial year, 11
were previously lodged with the KRT but had subsequently been
reclassified as more severe, thereby enabling them further
compensation.

The asbestos-related disease (ARD) classifications are ARD1 --
asbestos dust disease (pneumoconiosis); ARD2 -- asbestos dust
disease with severe lung-function impairment; ARD3 -- asbestos-
related lung cancer; and ARD4 -- mesothelioma.

During the 2016 financial year, KRT paid compensation for 14
claims related to ARD1, one claim related to ARD2, five claims
related to ARD3 and 15 claims related to ARD4.

Gibson pointed out that there were five cases in which claimants
with no prior history of ARD had lodged claims for the most severe
form of ARD -- mesothelioma. There were also three cases where
claimants with ARD1 had progressed to ARD4.

He noted that although there were some cases where ARD had
progressed to more severe forms of ARDs, the volume of claims has
been on an overall downward trend since 2010/11, having stabilised
to the current trend of about 35 cases a year.

Since it was established in February 2006, up to February 29, KRT
has paid compensation of R90.66-million to 1 350 claimants (some
claimants have more than one claim owing to progression of their
ARD).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Sydney Harbour Bridge
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a surprise cache of
asbestos has been found on Sydney's iconic Harbour Bridge during
road works.

While workers were removing the northern toll booth they uncovered
a small amount of asbestos under concrete road slabs thought to be
installed in the 1950s, Roads Minister Duncan Gay said.

A qualified hygienist tested the asbestos and said it had low
potential for airborne exposure, Mr Gay said.

Authorities will be checking where excess material removed from
the site went and how it was disposed of as part of an
investigation into the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Cayuga Centers for Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Craig, writing for Auburn Pub, reported that the U.S.
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has cited Cayuga Centers in Auburn for improper
asbestos removal and fined the organization $8,016.75.

OSHA issued Cayuga Centers three "serious" violations including
not having a competent person conducting an asbestos exposure
assessment, not conducting an asbestos exposure assessment and
lack of engineering control during the removal process, said
Carmelle Durand, acting area director of the Syracuse OSHA branch.
Serious violations, Durand said, may result in an injury to an
employee as a result of exposure to the hazard.

The citation issued on Oct. 24 comes after a nearly three-month
investigation following construction work at the administrative
building, 101 Hamilton Ave. According to the inspection detail,
OSHA said four people were potentially exposed.

Durand said they've received abatement paperwork, showing that the
asbestos has been properly removed. Cayuga Centers has also paid
the fine, which had been reduced from an original $10,689. Durand
said citations are based on a low, medium and high gravity scale,
and those that are low or medium have the opportunity to reduce
the fine by 25 percent if they do not contest the citation. Cayuga
Centers' citation was considered a medium or moderate citation,
she added.

Edward Hayes, chief executive officer of Cayuga Centers, told The
Citizen in June that asbestos was found in floor tiles that were
being removed as part of office renovations. Hayes said that air
quality tests showed that the asbestos was never airborne, and
therefore never a health hazard. He said no employees have claimed
they are sick because of it, though they have complained about the
smell of paint during some of the construction work.

"This has created a greater sense of awareness about being careful
around certain materials and not making assumptions about certain
materials," Hayes said. "Sometimes you drop the ball.

"We feel that this was a fair response on their (OSHA's) part,"
Hayes added, "because they recognized it was an honest mistake,
and we responded once we made an honest mistake."

Durand said she expects the case file to be closed soon now that
the penalties have been paid, and the abatement process is
finished, though OSHA still could do a follow up inspection.

"At this point it (Cayuga Centers) has not been targeted," Durand
said, "but that's not a definite no."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Brisbane Dam
---------------------------------------------------
Kathy McLeish, writing for ABC News, reported that dam operator
Seqwater has admitted residents living near Leslie Harrison Dam on
Brisbane's bayside were not warned about asbestos-contaminated
soil being removed from the area yesterday.

Seqwater said up to 300 cubic metres of contaminated soil had been
illegally dumped around the Capalaba dam site.

Local resident John Brown said his family knew nothing about the
nearby asbestos issue until trucks began rolling into the area
past his driveway.

He said about 40 truckloads of soil had been removed since then.

"No-one from the council or Seqwater has told us exactly what
they're doing," he said.

"One of the truck drivers was pulled up outside and he said that
they were moving hazardous waste.

"Nobody likes to have that happen right on your doorstep  --  I'd
like to be reassured that it's not going to happen again."
Former local MP and Labor deputy premier Jim Elder also lives near
the site.

"This has been appalling behaviour by Seqwater," Mr Elder said.

He and Mr Brown told the ABC the workers were not wearing
hazardous protection equipment yesterday.

Mr Elder said the authority had allowed the dam site to become
degraded over the past four years.

Seqwater spokesman Mike Foster conceded they had failed to
communicate properly.

"The communication from the organisation to the local neighbours
wasn't good enough," he said.

"What is occurring today, the neighbours will get a belated
letterbox drop from Seqwater advising them of what's occurred and
the timeframe.

"In terms of any contamination getting into the water from the
particular site, we've been advised that is not the case, the
Capalaba water treatment plan has a design capability to remove
asbestos fibres, people can be very confident and comfortable that
their water supply is very safe."

Contractors were expected to finish clearing the contaminated soil
today.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Steps Closer to Justice After Record Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Record reported that a man whose mum died from asbestos-
related cancer says he is closer to finding justice -- after
witnesses came forward following a Record appeal.

Alexander Culbert lost his mother Martha to mesothelioma in May.
She was 72.

The 50-year-old believes his mum was exposed to asbestos when she
would shake the dust from her husband Joseph's work clothes before
washing them.

Joseph, who was a labourer at Colvilles Steel Mill at Ravenscraig,
Lanarkshire, in the late 60s, died from multiple myeloma, another
asbestos-related disease, in 2007. He was 74.

We told how Alexander and his wife Vanessa, 56, are making a "loss
of society" claim. They instructed law firm Harper Macleod to
investigate Joseph's exposure to the deadly dust and fibres, which
they say led to Martha's secondary exposure.

Alexander said: "I was extremely happy to hear from my father's
former colleagues and welcome their information, which I hope will
go a long way to getting the justice both my parents deserve.

"A number of the people who called also had loved ones who passed
away from this terrible disease.

"The warmth and kindness of those who have assisted us in this
appeal has been overwhelming and we're extremely grateful."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Defense May Work in Asbestos Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Elkins, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, wrote that
the 4th Circuit reverses a district court order remanding to
Virginia state court an asbestos products liability suit removed
to federal court pursuant to the federal officer removal statute;
the district court erred in remanding the case under precedent
denying the government contractor defense in failure to warn
cases, as the Eastern District of Virginia is "clearly an outlier"
in so ruling.

A former boilermaker at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, who was diagnosed
with malignant mesothelioma in 2014, sued in Newport News state
court alleging failure to warn of asbestos hazards in products
manufactured for the Navy by Foster Wheeler LLC and Foster Wheeler
Energy Corp.

The federal officer removal statute allows a defendant to remove a
case from state to federal court if the defendant establishes 1)
it is a federal officer or a person acting under that officer; 2)
a "colorable federal defense"; and 3) the suit is for an act under
color of office, which requires a causal nexus between the charged
conduct and asserted official authority.

The government contractor defense only applies if a contractor's
obligations to the government conflict with state law such that
the contractor may not comply with both. We must decide whether
the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Boyle v. United Technologies
Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), holding the government contractor
defense applicable in design defect cases, likewise shields
defendants against failure to warn claims and thus provides a
basis for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442.
In this case, given the "thousands of asbestos cases that have
preceded" it in the Eastern District of Virginia, the district
court determined that the government contractor defense is not
available in failure to warn cases.
However, the Eastern District of Virginia is clearly an outlier in
this regard. No other jurisdiction in the country to have
considered the issue is in accord with the Eastern District of
Virginia. Indeed, the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 11th Circuits
have all applied the defense to failure to warn cases. Although we
have not yet had the opportunity to consider this issue directly,
we have recognized that these decisions of our sister circuits are
reasoned soundly. The multidistrict litigation court for asbestos
products also has applied the defense and allowed removal on this
basis in failure to warn cases. The rationales identified in Boyle
remain applicable in failure to warn cases.

Given the weight of opposing precedent and the rationales
supporting the defense, we now join the chorus and hold that the
government contractor defense is available in failure to warn
cases. We leave it to the district court to decide whether
appellants have presented sufficient proof to warrant removal
pursuant to Section 1442.

Reversed and remanded.

Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC (Thacker) No. 15-1918, Nov. 1, 2016;
USDC at Newport News, Va. (Allen) Erik D. Nadolink for
appellants; William Harty for appellee. VLW 016-2-149, 9 pp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kin of Asbestosis Victims Denied Relief
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosamma Thomas, writing for The Times of India, reported that kin
of those dead of asbestosis in Udaipur villages find that local
authorities will not release money due to them as compensation
after the death of their dear ones without proof the death was
indeed caused by asbestosis. Ram Lal, whose wife is now a
panchayat member at the Netaji Ka Bara village in Jhadol of
Udaipur district says he has been attempting to help the families
of those who lost loved ones to asbestosis but is finding it a
near impossible battle.

"We have made several trips to different offices, but we are told
that we must produce proof that the death was caused by
asbestosis. Some of the deaths occurred as far back as 2012. The
families have not received even a paisa in compensation. We have
been running from pillar to post but how can we possibly
establish, after all these years, how the deaths happened?"

After a global campaign to ban asbestos once its deleterious
impact on health was known, the state government banned asbestos
mining and stopped issuing leases for it in 1986. However, it was
not until 2005 that the last mines actually shut. By 2013, the
state government began to offer Rs1 lakh as compensation to
patients of silicosis -- once the patient died, his or her kin
were entitled to compensation of Rs3 lakh. If the death occurred
without the Rs 1 lakh being released to the patient, the kin can
claim Rs 4 lakh. The benefits were meant even for those who
suffered irreparable damage to their lungs after working in
asbestos mines. However, in the absence of clear guidelines to
local authorities, there are a host of rules cited to deny these
benefits to poor mineworkers and their families.
Latest Comment

On Sunday, Ram Lal told TOI that Desab Bullah of Kada village
nearby had died over a year ago. His wife and children have
received no support from the government, although he died a
painful death after prolonged suffering because of asbestosis.
Delu Hokra of Netaji Ka Bara died in 2012. His family too has been
approaching authorities, who insist on proof that Hokra died of
asbestosis. Hamira, who lost his wife, now lives with his only
son. Seven daughters are married. The death in family was caused
by asbestosis and all the neighbours know how painful and slow it
was. The family, however, has received no support from the
government. "These are people who do not have mobile phones. I
could have got them to speak with you, but their homes are not
near," Ram Lal told TOI.

District collector Rohit Gupta said, "The cause of death has to be
established. Even if the death occurred a few years ago, it is
possible for the medical board to certify the death as caused by
asbestosis by looking at the medical history. Once the certificate
is obtained, the compensation will be released."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell, Ford May Access Rule 2019 Exhibits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware granted Honeywell International, Inc., and
Ford Motor Company limited access to the 2019 Exhibits filed with
the bankruptcy court in compliance with the 2019 Order or
Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

The cases are In re: Owens Corning, Case No. 00-03837, Armstrong
World Industries, Inc., Case No. 00-4471, W.R. Grace & Co.,  Case
No. 01-1139, USG Corp., Case No. 01-2094, US Minerals Products
Company,  Case No. 01-2471, Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Case No. 02-
10429, ACandS, Inc., Case No. 02-12687, Combustion Engineering,
Inc., Case No. 03-10495, The Flinkote Company,  Case No. 04-11300,
Debtors (Bankr. D. Del.).

The nine captioned cases are bankruptcy cases which resulted from
the entities' asbestos related liabilities.

Honeywell, joined by Ford, sought access to statements and
exhibits, which asbestos claimants submitted in the captioned
cases pursuant to the orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court,
which standardized disclosures required by Rule 2019 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure throughout the mass tort
bankruptcies filed in the Third Circuit.  They sought access to
these documents under the public right to access of the Bankruptcy
Code Section 107 and the common law.

The North American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust Advisory Committee ("NARCO TAC"), joined by
others, objected to the motion.

Honeywell is a diversified technology and manufacturing company
which has been a global supplier of automotive brake friction
materials and aftermarket brake products.  The "Bendix" products
are the subject of numerous lawsuits alleging asbestos exposure
from Bendix products.  Honeywell is also obligated to fund all
distributions which the NARCO Trust makes up to capped amounts
(which exceed $100 million) and all of the NARCO Trust's expenses.

Honeywell's purpose in seeking access to the Rule 2019 Exhibits is
to investigate fraudulent claims and produce the Rule 2019
Exhibits to the NARCO Trust for its own review of claims, and for
lobbying activities.  Honeywell cites several sources to support
its view that fraudulent claims have been filed against Honeywell
and the NARCO Trust.

Ford is an automobile manufacturing company, and has been named as
a defendant in asbestos cases by plaintiffs claiming to have
worked with or around chrysotile containing brake pads.

Judge Gross was satisfied that the presumption of public access
applies to the Rule 2019 Exhibits because they are judicial
records.  The judge pointed out, however, that notwithstanding the
presumption, a court retains the authority to seal documents "when
justice so requires."  Judg Gross held that the nature of the
information contained in the Rule 2019 Exhibits, while not enough
to automatically rebut the presumption, does call for judicial
discretion in considering a grant of access.

Honeywell and Ford both sought limitless access from the court for
use outside judicial proceedings.  Judge Gross explained, however,
that in the Third Circuit, access to court records has been denied
where court files could potentially become a vehicle for improper
purposes, and that he could not find any Third Circuit case law
holding or otherwise considering whether lobbying is a proper
purpose under Rule 2019.

Accordingly, Judge Gross limited Honeywell's and Ford's use of the
Rule 2019 Exhibits.  The judge stated that "They may not be used
for 'lobbying efforts.'  Honeywell and Ford may use the Rule 2019
Exhibits to investigate fraud in the claims process and may share
the information with the NARCO Trust in an aggregate format.  In
other words, Honeywell and Ford may not share the identity of
individuals by name or other identifying means with the NARCO
Trust.  Honeywell and Ford are granted three months to complete
their work and must comply with the Protocol Order which requires
the destruction of the Rule 2019 Exhibits at the conclusion of the
work.  Honeywell's and Ford's efforts will be at their expense.
In addition, the Court will appoint a party to oversee the
production of the Rule 2019 Exhibits.  Given Honeywell's
opposition to the appointment of the person who the NARCO TAC
suggested, the parties are directed to confer and submit a name or
names to the Court.  Honeywell and Ford will bear the cost of the
person who the Court names."

A full-text copy of Judge Gross' November 8, 2016 opinion is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb00-03837-21172.pdf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 36,450 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is facing 36,450 pending claims alleging injury or death
as a result of exposure 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.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 36,450 pending claims as of September 30, 2016,
approximately 18,300 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 1,500 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
4,800 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the nine-month
periods ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 totaled $57.5 million
and $52.5 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the nine-month periods
ended September 30, 2016 and 2015 totaled $41.5 million and $36.2
million, respectively.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/DrW9S1

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Awaits Ruling in "Nelson"
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is still awaiting ruling by the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania of the lawsuit over James Nelson's asbestos claim,
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 has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.
On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and
by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23,
2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the
jury verdict. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which defendants have opposed. By
order dated May 20, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is
holding, but not acting on, the plaintiffs' petition pending the
outcome of another appeal in which the Company is not a party.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $6.6MM Judgment in "Dummitt"
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. paid judgment, with interest, in the amount of $6.6
million in the third quarter 2016 in the lawsuit filed by Ronald
Dummitt, 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.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a
3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company appealed to
the New York Court of Appeals. The court heard oral arguments on
May 3, 2016 and affirmed the judgment in a decision dated June 28,
2016. The judgment, with interest, in the amount of $6.6 million
was paid in the third quarter 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $0.2MM Judgment in "Suttner"
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. paid judgment, with interest, in the amount of $0.2
million in the third quarter 2016 in the lawsuit filed by Gerald
Suttner, 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.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was
accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on May 3, 2016 and affirmed the judgment in a decision
dated June 28, 2016. The judgment, with interest, in the amount of
$0.2 million was paid in the third quarter 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Heard Oral Arguments in "Amato"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted Crane Co.'s petition
for review and heard oral arguments on September 13, 2016, in the
asbestos case filed by Thomas Amato, 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.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company appealed,
and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania accepted the Company's petition for review and
heard oral arguments on September 13, 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Award in "Peraica" Cut to $4.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the New York Appellate Division, First Department,
affirmed the rulings in the asbestos lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica
against Crane Co., and further reduced the damages award to $4.25
million, which after settlement offsets is calculated to be $1.94
million, 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.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company appealed. The Company
took a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of its summary
judgment motion. The Court consolidated the appeals, which were
heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. In July 2016, the Company
supplemented its briefing based on the New York Court of Appeals
Dummitt/Suttner decision. On October 6, 2016, a panel of the
Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of the
trial court on liability issues but further reduced the damages
award to $4.25 million, which after settlement offsets is
calculated to be $1.94 million. Plaintiff has the option of
accepting the reduced amount or having a new trial on damages. The
Company is considering its further appellate options.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth"
--------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting ruling on Lee Holdsworth's motion to enter
judgment in the trial court in the amount of approximately $1.0
million, 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.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court entered judgment in the amount of $1.7 million. On June
12, 2015, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the
trial court's ruling denying the Company's motion for summary
judgment. The court denied reargument of that ruling. The Company
pursued a further appeal of the trial court rulings and judgment,
which was argued on May 16, 2016. On July 8, 2016, the Court
vacated the judgment and granted the Company a new trial on the
issue of whether the Company is subject to joint-and-several
liability under New York law. Plaintiff filed a motion to enter
judgment in the trial court in the amount allegedly unaffected by
the appellate ruling, approximately $1.0 million, and the Company
opposed the motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. May Pursue Further Appeal in "Sweberg"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is considering its further appellate options in the
lawsuit filed by Ivan Sweberg, 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.

On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied,
except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million,
and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments have been
entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million
in Hackshaw. The Company appealed. Oral argument on Sweberg took
place on February 16, 2016, and oral argument on Hackshaw took
place on March 9, 2016. On October 6, 2016, two panels of the
Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of the
trial court on liability issues but further reduced the Sweberg
damages award to $9.5 million and further reduced the Hackshaw
damages award to $3 million, which after settlement offsets are
calculated to be $4.73 million in Sweberg and $0 in Hackshaw.
Plaintiffs have the option of accepting the reduced awards or
having new trials on damages. The Company is considering its
further appellate options in Sweberg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle"
-----------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is still awaiting ruling in the asbestos lawsuit filed
by Richard DeLisle, 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.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.
Oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16, 2016. On
September 14, 2016 a panel of the Florida Court of Appeals
reversed and entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to
the Florida Supreme Court, and the Company opposed the motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals $10.8MM Judgment in "Poage"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal from a ruling granting judgment in
the amount of $10.8 million to James Poage, 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.

On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state court jury in the
James Poage claim entered a $1.5 million verdict for compensatory
damages against the Company. The jury also awarded exemplary
damages against the Company in the amount of $10 million. The
Company filed a motion seeking to reduce the verdict to account
for the verdict set-offs. That motion was denied, and judgment was
entered against the Company in the amount of $10.8 million. The
Company is pursuing an appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Brings "Rabovsky" to Third Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals of the ruling granting judgment in the amount of $0.4
million to Valent Rabovsky, 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.

On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, federal court
jury found the Company responsible for a 30 percent share of a
$1.085 million verdict in the Valent Rabovsky claim. The court
ordered briefing on the amount of the judgment. The Company
argued, among other things, that settlement offsets reduce the
award to plaintiff under Pennsylvania law. A further hearing was
held April 26, 2016, after which the court denied the Company's
request and entered judgment in the amount of $0.4 million. The
Company filed post-trial motions, which were denied in two
decisions issued on August 26, 2016 and September 28, 2016. The
Company is pursuing an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Brings "Coulbourn" to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals of the ruling granting judgment in the amount of $6.8
million to George Coulbourn, 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.

On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona federal court jury found the
Company responsible for a 20 percent share of a $9 million verdict
in the George Coulbourn claim, and further awarded exemplary
damages against the Company in the amount of $5 million.  The jury
also awarded compensatory and exemplary damages against the other
defendant present at trial.  The court entered judgment against
the Company in the amount of $6.8 million. The Company filed post-
trial motions, which were denied on September 20, 2016. The
Company is pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Recorded $487MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. record $487 million in asbestos liability 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: "With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. (HR&A), effective as of December 31, 2011, the
Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos
liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments
and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The
Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or
projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated
estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285
million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take
this action at such date was based on several factors which
contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this
liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of
mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8%
of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for
approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and
defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated
settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's
opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed
and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second,
there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law
which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have
been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and
courts over the past several years that have reduced the number
and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a
significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity.
Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place
agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables
the Company to project a more stable relationship between
settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and
reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into
account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be
filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will
incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company
does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated
beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any
costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made
subsequent to 2021.

"Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
September 30, 2016, the Company's actual experience during the
updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's
liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the
Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant
appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their
respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on
this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended September 30, 2016.
Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained
increase or decrease, the liability could change materially;
however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos
liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate. The Company continues to
monitor trend factors, such as the number and type of claims being
filed each year, case management orders and legislation
restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial,
significant appellate rulings and developments affecting the post-
bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants to assess whether the
existing forecast period is appropriate. Because of the
uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors
used in the calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no
one factor predominates, the Company believes that a range of
potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period
cannot be reasonably estimated.

"A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011,
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $487 million as of September 30, 2016. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at September 30, 2016 was $75
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

"Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant
portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by
its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary
coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers
to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or
defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into
agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-
in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such
coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in
force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the
Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms
and conditions that address, among other things, the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the
Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers
confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the
subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future
reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity
and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of its excess
insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements,
settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed
sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate.

"Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing settlement and
defense costs allocable to their policies have been made in
accordance with these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All
of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases,
indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims
handling procedures. With the agreements, the Company has
concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent excess
insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate
costs included in the updated liability estimate. That insurer,
which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying the
shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to
it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no pending legal
proceedings between the Company and any insurer contesting the
Company's asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $112 million as of September 30, 2016.

"The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time, for the reasons cited.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Continues to Defend Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
lawsuits at September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-
related claims in which the Company is one of numerous defendants.
After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such
actions, the current political environment with respect to
asbestos-related claims, and the liabilities accrued with respect
to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Pays Cricket-Linked Waste Disposal Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T INC. reached a monetary settlement with the San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District for alleged violations of
California regulations governing an independent dealer's waste
disposal of asbestos containing materials, 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.

In February 2014, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District began inquiring into alleged violations of California
regulations governing removal, handling and disposal of asbestos
containing materials arising from an independent dealer's
demolition and construction activity in preparation to install
upgraded point of purchase and fixtures in accordance with Cricket
dealer guidelines. While the independent dealer was in sole
control of contractors performing the work at issue, the County
has focused on Cricket Communications dealer agreement terms and
interactions with the independent dealer as a basis for asserting
direct liability against Cricket Communications, Inc. After
discussions, in November 2015, the County issued a penalty demand
in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. In October 2016, the
Company reached a monetary settlement with the County of this
matter for an immaterial amount.

AT&T Inc. is a holding company. The Company offers communications
and digital entertainment services in the United States and the
world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Faces 34,400 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 34,400 asbestos claims 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 is a defendant in lawsuits
claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of
exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, a predecessor, generally prior to the early
1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number
of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the
Company in which a product has been identified principally relate
to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating
material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and
marine use.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of September 30, 2016, the Company had pending
approximately 34,400 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 36,030 as of December 31, 2015 and 37,190 as of
September 30, 2015. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company
received approximately 930 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 1,320 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. In 2015, as the result of an
insurance settlement, insurance recoveries exceeded the Company's
after tax costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims by
approximately $5 million. In 2014, the Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance and
taxes were approximately $11 million. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

"The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

CBS Corporation is comprised of the following segments:
Entertainment (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Television
Network, CBS Television Studios, CBS Studios International, and
CBS Television Distribution; CBS Interactive and CBS Films), Cable
Networks (Showtime Networks, CBS Sports Network and Smithsonian
Networks), Publishing (Simon & Schuster), Local Media (CBS
Television Stations) and Radio (CBS Radio).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 570 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 570 outstanding asbestos claims 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: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in
courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing
these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against
us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several
hundred.

"The table presents information about our recent asbestos claims
activity:

                                    Asbestos Claims Activity

   Claims outstanding
      at December 31, 2015                      488
   New claims filed                             210
   Pending claims concluded                    (128)
   Claims outstanding at September 30, 2016     570

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2016, 119 claims were
dismissed and 9 claims were settled. Settlements totaled
approximately $1.9 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2016.

"We recognize a liability for asbestos-related contingencies that
are probable of occurrence and reasonably estimable. In connection
with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos related matters,
we record asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed
probable. Our estimates of asbestos-related contingent liabilities
and related insurance receivables are based on an independent
actuarial analysis and an independent insurance usage analysis
prepared annually by third parties. The actuarial analysis
contains numerous assumptions, including general assumptions
regarding the asbestos-related product liability litigation
environment and company-specific assumptions regarding claims
rates (including diseases alleged), dismissal rates, average
settlement costs and average defense costs. The insurance usage
analysis considers, among other things, applicable deductibles,
retentions and policy limits, the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers, the likelihood of
recovery as estimated by external legal counsel and existing
insurance settlements.

"We review our asbestos-related forecasts annually in the fourth
quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances materially
change during the year, at which time we would analyze these
forecasts. Currently, these analyses project liabilities and
related insurance receivables over a 10-year period. It is
probable we will incur additional costs for asbestos-related
claims following this 10-year period, but we do not believe that
any related contingencies are reasonably estimable beyond such
period based on, among other things, the significant proportion of
future claims included in the analysis and the lag time between
the date a claim is filed and its resolution. Accordingly, no
liability (or related asset) has yet been recorded for claims that
may be asserted subsequent to 2025.

"As of December 31, 2015, the asbestos-related claims and
insurance receivables for the 10-year projection period were $56.6
million and $53.4 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2016,
there have been no changes to these projections.
To date, the defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance. We have identified continuous coverage for primary,
excess and umbrella insurance from the 1950s through the mid-
1980s, except for a period in the early 1960s, with respect to
which we have entered into an agreement for primary, but not
excess or umbrella, coverage. In addition, we have entered into a
cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and
umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of claims by the carriers. The cost
sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will
continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing
date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated. As
previously disclosed, however, we expect to exhaust individual
primary, excess and umbrella coverages over time, and there is no
assurance that such exhaustion will not accelerate due to
additional claims, damages and settlements or that coverage will
be available as expected. Accordingly, while we believe it is
reasonably possible that we may incur losses and defense costs in
excess of our accruals in the future, we do not have sufficient
data to provide a reasonable estimate or range of such losses and
defense costs, at this time.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and
believe we have substantial unutilized insurance coverage to
mitigate future costs related to this matter."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 322 Asbestos Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation is a defendant in approximately 322
asbestos cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the
United States 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 have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for the past 28 years. Our subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by us. As of September 30, 2016, we were a
defendant in approximately 322 cases brought in state and federal
courts throughout the United States. In the nine months ended
September 30, 2016, 65 asbestos cases were brought against us. In
the calendar year 2015, 99 asbestos cases were brought against us.
In the last 28 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In
many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial
for lack of product identification. As of September 30, 2016,
50,942 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the nine months
ended September 30, 2016, 67 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of
December 31, 2015, 50,875 cases were dismissed. With regards to
the approximately 322 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively
defending these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing
product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of
our product.

"As of September 30, 2016, plaintiffs have asserted monetary
damages in 165 cases. In 56 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only
damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $681 thousand per
plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar
amounts requested as to any defendant. In 108 other cases pending
in state and federal district courts, plaintiffs seek
approximately $430 million in damages from as many as 50
defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related
to General Cable in the amount of $4 million. In addition, in
relation to these 165 cases, there are claims of $270 million in
punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the
plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of
September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued, on a
gross basis, approximately $4.3 million and $4.1 million,
respectively, and as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015,
had recovered approximately $0.4 million of insurance recoveries
for these lawsuits. The net amount of $3.9 million and $3.7
million, as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015,
respectively, represents our best estimate in order to cover
resolution of current asbestos-related claims.

"The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31,
2015, aggregate settlement costs were $9.8 million and $9.7
million, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30,
2016 and October 2, 2015, settlement costs totaled less than $0.1
million and $0.2 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2016
and December 31, 2015, aggregate litigation costs were $26.9
million and $26.1 million, respectively. For the nine months ended
September 30, 2016 and October 2, 2015, litigation costs were $0.8
million and $1.1 million, respectively.

"In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with
certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the
costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the
asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the
insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for
a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and
another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the
insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially
most of the costs relating to these lawsuits."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. Vertex Unit Remains Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
E-Source Holdings, LLC, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex
Energy Operating, LLC, continues to face a lawsuit relating to
asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed at a
Jefferson County, Texas facility, 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: "E-Source Holdings, LLC, the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along
with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth
(60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22,
2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc., made
certain allegations against E-Source and Motiva. The claims
include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to
asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for
defendants' at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County,
Texas. The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned. Defendants
have denied any amounts due to plaintiff. The suit seeks damages
of approximately $864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to
be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees. We
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made
in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining whether
there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the
claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation."

Vertex Energy, Inc. is an environmental services company that
recycles industrial waste streams and off-specification commercial
chemical products. Vertex Energy Operating, LLC is its subsidiary.





                            *********

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  * * *