CAR_Public/161125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 236




                            Headlines

3M CO: Faces Two More Water Contamination Class Actions
A10 NETWORKS: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 13
ACE PARKING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Byles" Class Suit
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Defending Class Suit in Gwinnett County
ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hawkins" Suit

AGRIA CORP: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tatis Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of D.N.J. Ruling
ALLSTATE: St. Clair Shores Police Fund Files Class Suit
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
AMAZON SERVICES: 9th Cir. Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration

APPCO: Chamberlains Files Class Action Over Sham Contracting
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Meller" Suit Over ARC-520
AUSTRALIA: Williamtown Residents Forced to File Class Action
BAIS YAAKOV: Court Hears Oral Argument on Fax Waiver Order Appeal
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: "Castillo" Alleges IV Solution Price-Fixing

BAYER: 14,000 People Join Xarelto Class Action in U.S.
BERNALILLO, NM: Zuniga Appeals D.N.M. Decision to Tenth Circuit
BIG HEART: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Mawby" Suit
BURLINGTON CTY, NJ: Haas Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Denial of Martin's Cert. Bid Affirmed

CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Noteholders' Class Suit Underway
CAMPOPIANO ROOFING: Faces "Harm" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
CANADA: G20 Class-Actions Against Toronto Police Can Proceed
CCDN LLC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements

CHINACAST EDUCATION: Files Chapter 11 to Avert Class Action
CITIBANK NA: Stitt Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
COMENITY LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Conspired to Fix Prices, Suit Says
CORMEDIX INC: NJ Court Dismissed "Li" Amended Complaint

COSTCO WHOLESALE: DeCarlo Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
COVISINT CORP: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for Dec. 13
CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Scott" Suit
DETROIT, MI: Can Continue to Shut Water Service, 6th Cir. Says
DEX MEDIA: Kopp Appeals From Decision in "Fulmer" Class Suit

DUNKIN' BRANDS: Estler Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Filed After Stocks Fell
EAGLE ROAD: Oklahoma Residents File Class Action Over Quakes
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Ellinghaus Appeals From E.D.N.Y. Judgment
ENERGY RECOVERY: Reached Settlement of Stockholders' Action

ENTRUST ENERGY: Faces "Henderson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stipulation to Dismiss OT Claims Filed
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "Anderson" Merger Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "Voth" Merger Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "LeMay" Merger Suit

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Dougherty" Action Underway
ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Suit in Early Stages
ETSY INC: Cervantes-Weiss Suit Remains Stayed
EVERYDAY HEALTH: Faces "Hanson" Securities Suit Over Ziff Merger
FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Still Pending

FEDCHOICE FEDERAL: Appeals Ruling in "Horton" Suit to 3rd Cir.
FERRARA CANDY: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Jewsevskyj Seeks Review of E.D. Pa. Ruling
FIRST SOLAR: Pension Schemes' Appeal Remains Pending
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Sudden Acceleration Incidents

GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Refused to Dismiss Camaro Class Action
GENUINE TITLE: Court Certifies West Town Class in "Fangman" Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over China Oceanwide Deal
H&R BLOCK: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Perras" Suit
HALYARD HEALTH: Suit by Bahamas Surgery Center in Discovery

HALYARD HEALTH: To Defend Against "Jackson" Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "McLean" Class Suit
HUMANA INSURANCE: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brodsky" Suit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
INOGEN INC: Settlement Approval Anticipated in Late November

INOVALON HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Not Yet Been Appointed
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: "Donato" Action Still Pending
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over FLSA Violation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Decision to Ninth Circuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ellis" Class Suit

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cecio Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Parties in Gainesville Suit Await Court Ruling
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Virgin Islands Class Action Dismissed
KRISPY KREME: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Doughnut Ingredients
LA QUINTA: Still Defends "Beisel" Class Suit in New York

LABOR READY: Objectors Appeal Decision in "Allen" Class Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
LISNR INC: CEO Responds to Indianapolis Colts App Class Action
LOWER EAST: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
LPL FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Suit

MAJOR LEAGUE: Wyckoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
MANTECA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
MASTEC INC: "Wrigley" Class Suit Still Pending
MED SECURITY: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
MILWAUKEE COUNTY: Lowered Retirement Benefits, Class Suit Says

MISSISSIPPI, USA: Fletcher Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Cir.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Quinton Appeals Ruling to 6th Circuit
MYLAN: Investigations Into EpiPen Pricing Piling Up
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Players Urge Supreme Court to Review Settlement
NESTLE: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Beneful Dog Food

NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Florida
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Decision on Motion for Reargument
OVASCIENCE INC: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint
PARTNERS REAL ESTATE: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PENSION BENEFIT: Collins Appeals D. Columbia Ruling to D.C. Cir.

PHYSICIAN'S FORMULA: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Pelayo" Class Suit
PMLRA PIZZA: Files Another First Circuit Appeal in "Reeves" Suit
PNC CAPITAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Martin" Class Suit
PRIME VALET: "Farasat" Claims Non-payment of Min. Wage Under FLSA

PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over Share Price Drop
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: Singh Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 5th Cir.
REDBACK ENERGY: Court Certifies Operators Class in "Caffey" Suit
REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces 2 Class Suits in San Mateo Court

RL REPPERT: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Askew" Suit
SCHIBI TRANSPORTATION: Underpaid Drivers File Class Action
SIMONTON BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Substandard Windows
SNC-LAVALIN: Court Reconsiders Role of "Public Corrections"
SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces 6 Class Actions Over Enbridge Merger

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: 10th Cir. Denied Plaintiff's Rehearing Bid
SPROUTS FARMERS: Motion to Remand Securities Action Pending
SPROUTS FARMERS: "Phishing" Scam Actions Transferred
STAR FURNITURE: Faces "Letelier" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
STARKIST CO: Hendricks Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.

STARKIST CO: Objector Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Hendricks" Suit
SUNTRUST BANK: Trapp Appeals M.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Etchieson" Suit Invokes FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Underway
TIME INC: Appellate Briefs Due by Jan. 26

TIME INC: Motion to Dismiss "Perlin" Class Action Underway
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Case Transferred to Massachusetts
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Jackie888 Action Sought
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidation of Doshi & Garbowski Sought
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring Insulation

TRANSUNION LLC: Loses Bid to Decertify FCRA Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Argue Pre-Trial Class Action Motions
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Trial to Proceed on Nov. 28
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Enter Into Settlement Talks
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Foundation Won't Pay for Settlement, Atty Says

TRUMP UNIVESRITY: Trump Impeachment Mulled Amid Fraud Suits
TUMBLEWEED PIZZA: "Redus" Suit Seeks to Recoup Drivers' Wages
TWITTER INC: Securities Class Action Less Likely to Succeed
UBS: Settles Canadian Foreign Exchange Manipulation Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Moses" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

UNITED STATES: Yanko Files Appeal in Federal Claims Court
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Fellgren" Suit Alleging Clawback
US PENSION COMMITTEE: Forte Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
UTAH: Appeal in Jail Mental Health Class Action Tossed
V.R.P. HOLDINGS: Faces "Roman" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

VIRGINIA: Justice Dep't Supports Class Action Against DMV
VISA INC: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Antitrust Suit
VISA INC: Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of ATM Fees Case
VITAL THERAPIES: Securities Class Action Dismissed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Major Dieselgate Class Action

VOLVO CARS: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Laurens" Class Suit
WAL-MART: Likely to Appeal $54MM Award in Drivers' Wage Case
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal of Braun/Hummel Ruling Filed in Pa. Court
WESTERN REFINING: Faces Class Suit by NTI Shareholder
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Kress Seeks Review of Ruling in "Chambers" Suit

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Knott Seeks Review of Ruling in "Chambers" Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Chambers" Suit
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Brenner Appeals Decision to First Circuit
WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending
YAHOO! INC: Faces 23 Suits Over Massive Data Breach

* Class Action Rule Changes Expected to Come to Federal Courts
* Law Passed for Queensland Supreme Court Class Action Procedure
* New Mexico Voters Approve Ban on Unaffordable Bail Amid Suits
* Retailers Face Website Accessibility Class Action Threat


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Reverses Remand of "Ripley"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. OK's Bid to Dismiss All Craft Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blount" Remanded to Los Angeles Super. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Pisano"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Utech" Remanded to Calif. Superior Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace To Pay $30MM To PD Trust in Feb.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Received 3,267 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Had $15MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $30MM for Manhattan Accident

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $720-Mil. for Superfund Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $32MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Faces Exposure Claims Over Mill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends Suits at Sept. 24

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Faces 17,076 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker Loses Fight vs. Navy Supplier
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices OK Expert Opinion on Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kenya Faces Cancer Epidemic by Asbestos Roofs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Returns Boeing Suit to Federal Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castle Point Has High Meso Mortality Rates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Settles Canadian Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Orders Compensation for Heacham Woman
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Has Claimed 33,000 Aussie Lives
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Complex Owned Charged for Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Agency Taken to Court Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses Dallas Firm's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Studying Asbestos Liability at Sept30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less than 500 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $36MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$5.7MM Loss at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has 120 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had $512MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects More Asbestos Claims



                            *********


3M CO: Faces Two More Water Contamination Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Justin Heinze, writing for Hatboro Patch, reports that two class
action lawsuits have been filed by area law firms on behalf of
residents against firefighting foam manufacturers due to water
contamination in the Horsham and Warminster areas.

Norristown-based Creedon and Feliciani, along with Philadelphia-
based Levin, Fishbein, Sedran, & Berman have announced that the
suits will be filed on behalf of 14 residents of Montgomery and
Bucks counties against the manufacturers of firefighting foams.

The foams contained dangerous levels of chemicals called PFOA and
PFOS, which leaked into the groundwater and allegedly caused
various medical issues.  The contamination occurred at two
military bases: Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove
and Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster.

In September, a lawsuit was also filed by the Erin Brockovitch-
backed law firm Weitz and Luxenberg.  According to The
Intelligencer, the three suits are closely related in their
charges and could be tried together in court.

"For years, residents living near military bases in eastern
Pennsylvania were unknowingly exposed to dangerous chemicals in
their drinking water," Robin Greenwald, head of the Environmental
and Consumer Protection Unit at Weitz and Luxenberg said in a
statement.  "With this lawsuit, we are fighting to ensure that the
companies who manufactured and marketed products containing these
chemicals -- and put their profits ahead of public health in the
process -- are brought to justice for their wrongdoing."

Creedon and Feliciani said that they will demand damages for a
variety of issues, including: medical monitoring, including blood
testing, installment of permanent filtration devices on private
wells, remediation of property contaminated with PFOA and PFOS,
payment for water filtration systems for private well owners, and
compensatory damages including payment of increased water bills.

Because it is a class action suit, it includes all individuals who
own or occupy residential properties in the areas that were
affected.  Those areas include Horsham, Warminster, Hatboro,
Warrington, and Ivyland. It also includes military and civilian
personnel who served or worked at the two impacted bases.

The foam was created by numerous companies, including the 3M
Company (formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Co.), Angus Fire, The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Protection
Company; Chemguard, and National Foam. All are named in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuits state, with differing language, that producers of the
foams should have essentially known that inclusion of PFOS and
PFOA could pose a major risk to the environment and human health.
Companies did not warn about this potential for harm.


A10 NETWORKS: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Jan. 13
----------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the final fairness
hearing is scheduled to be heard on January 13, 2017, to approve
the settlement of the case, In re A10 Networks, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering ("IPO")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207.  Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).
On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207."

"On April 6, 2016, all parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all
claims against all defendants asserted in the action and providing
that we will make a payment of $0.8 million, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies. The parties subsequently executed
a stipulation of settlement, dated June 30, 2016, and filed a
motion with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted on September 15, 2016. The payment
was made in October 2016. The final fairness hearing is scheduled
to be heard on January 13, 2017.

"The settlement releases all claims asserted against all
defendants and includes the dismissal of all claims against all
defendants without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.
The settlement remains subject to stockholder notice, final court
approval and other customary conditions."

A10 is a provider of application networking and network security
technologies.


ACE PARKING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Byles" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bruce Byles filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Bruce Byles v. Ace Parking Management, Inc., Case
No. 2:16-cv-00834-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Bruce Byles
filed the lawsuit against Ace Parking Management, Inc., on
June 3, 2016.

Ace Parking manages every conceivable type of parking application
including: Office, Retail, Hotel and Valet Services, Airport
Parking, Stadium, and Hospitals.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce Byles v. Ace Parking
Management, Inc., Case No. 16-35920, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Bruce Byles' opening brief is due on February 13,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Ace Parking Management, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on March 13, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant BRUCE BYLES, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

          Darrell Cochran, Esq.
          Christopher Eric Love, Esq.
          PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS KOSNOFF PLLC
          911 Pacific Avenue, Suite 200
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Personal: (253) 777-0799
          E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.co
                  chris@pcvalaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., is represented
by:

          John M. Kreutzer, Esq.
          SMITH FREED & EBERHARD PC
          111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4300
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-2424
          Facsimile: (503) 227-2535
          E-mail: jkreutzer@smithfreed.com


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Defending Class Suit in Gwinnett County
----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in
Gwinnett County, Georgia.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.

The company is an integrated provider of non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services, operating
primarily in secondary markets or under exclusive arrangements.


ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hawkins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shavonda Hawkins filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Shavonda Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02309-JAH-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Shavonda Hawkins v.
AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., Case No. Case No. 16-56697, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 17,
2016, District Judge John A. Houston granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case.

Shavonda Hawkins is a consumer/purchaser of Fast Bites
microwaveable sandwiches since January 1, 2008.  On October 14,
2015, Hawkins filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging
AdvancePierre Foods's use of partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) in
its microwaveable sandwiches.  Hawkins asserts that PHO is a
source of artificial trans fat and that there is no safe level of
PHO or artificial trans fat intake because PHO and artificial
trans fat cause inflammation, cardiovascular heart disease,
diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and cognitive damage.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 9, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 9, 2017;

   -- Appellant Shavonda Hawkins' opening brief is due on
      February 17, 2017;

   -- Appellee AdvancePierre Foods, Inc.'s answering brief is due
      on March 20, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Elliot, Esq.
          Gregory Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (858) 228-7997
          Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
          E-mail: david@westonfirm.com
                  greg@westonfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee ADVANCEPIERRE FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Andrew H. Cox, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          3900 Key Center
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566-5747
          E-mail: Andrew.Cox@ThompsonHine.com


AGRIA CORP: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed against American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") of Agria Corporation ("Agria" or the "Company")
and certain of its officers.  This class action is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased Agria between
December 16, 2011 and November 4, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Defendants were trading to artificially inflate Agria's
stock price to meet NYSE's continuing listing standards and to
avoid being delisted from the NYSE; (2) Agria lacked sufficient
internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) consequently,
Defendants' public statements about Agira's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action.  To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/groor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those
who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in Agria,
you have until January 9, 2017 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tatis Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of D.N.J. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michelle Tatis filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Michelle Tatis v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case
No. 2-16-cv-00109, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate LLC provides accounts receivable and debt
collection services to companies from a wide range of industries.

The appellate case is captioned as Michelle Tatis v. Allied
Interstate LLC, Case No. 16-4022, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

Defendant-Appellee ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC is represented by:

          Kellie A. Lavery, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite 250
          Princeton Forrestal Village
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 524-2071
          Facsimile: (609) 951-0824
          E-mail: klavery@reedsmith.com


ALLSTATE: St. Clair Shores Police Fund Files Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Allstate concealed that the expansion of its car insurance
business significantly reduced its profit margin, keeping its
share price artificially high while its CEO sold $33 million in
stock, a securities class action claims in Chicago.

Allstate is the largest publicly traded personal insurance company
in the United States. Personal insurance includes homeowner,
renter, motorcycle and car insurance.

Car insurance is a low-margin business, according to Allstate CEO
Thomas J. Wilson. He is quoted in a Nov. 10 complaint as saying,
"It's not like a software business, where you lose five points of
margin and you don't really care that much. We care a lot because
it's sort of like everything."

Therefore, Allstate meticulously tracks the ratio of claim losses
to revenues from insurance policies, and investors rely on this
metric to evaluate the company's profitability.  It also monitors
on a daily or even hourly basis the frequency of auto claims, as a
spike in claims might require tightening underwriting methods or
an increase in policy prices, court records show.

In October 2014, Allstate allegedly embarked on a new plan to
increase its market share in the car insurance business while
maintaining profitability.  But according to a class action filed
by the City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System,
the plan failed.

"Allstate's new business was of lower quality and carried
increased risk, which caused, in substantial part, Allstate's
largest increase in frequency of auto claims in nearly five
years," according to the complaint, which was filed on November
17, in Chicago federal court.

The lawsuit says Allstate publicly denied that the spike in auto
claims was related to its business expansion.

"Rather than admit that Allstate's auto policy growth and
increased revenues had caused a spike in auto claims and reduced
profit margins, defendants claimed the spike in claims frequency
was caused solely by external events beyond Allstate's control --
namely weather and increased miles driven. This was false," the
complaint states.

While investors remained in the dark and Allstate continued to
trade at then all-time highs, Wilson allegedly cashed out $33
million in stock options, which represented 88 percent of his
stake in the company.

Allstate did not admit that its new business model was responsible
for the losses until August 2015, the class claims.

Allstate President Matthew Winter ultimately contradicted his
earlier statements, and admitted that new business growth
contributed to the higher auto claims and "shockingly conceded
that this impact 'was expected,'" the complaint says.

The disclosure caused Allstate's stock price to drop more than 10
percent from $69.38 per share to $62.34 per share, eliminating $2
billion in market capitalization and causing losses to class
members who invested in the company from October 2014 to August
2015, according to the lawsuit.

Given Allstate's decades of experience in underwriting and
analysis of claim trends, the complaint alleges Allstate must have
known the true cause of the increase in claims and deliberately
misled investors by attributing it solely to external factors.

It also claims Wilson's liquidation of $33 million in stock
options -- an unusual trade, given that Wilson had not sold any
shares for 10 years prior -- amounts to insider trading.

The proposed class is represented by James E. Barz --
jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- with Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd in
Chicago.

Allstate spokesperson Laura Strykowski said, "We have reviewed the
complaint and the allegations are without merit."


ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Perez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC,
Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena
Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 16-80168, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 2,
2016, the Hon. Manuel L. Real denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in its entirety.

The Court says, "While this Court recognizes the potential impact
of Defendant's uniform policies, it is clear that they do not
answer 'the main concern in the predominance inquiry: the balance
between individual and common issues[.]' Many individual questions
would have to be answered by each class member".

The Plaintiff raises a total of six causes of action against the
Defendant.  The primary claims for the purpose of class
certification are: claim one for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks and claim two for failure to pay wages.  The remaining four
claims are derivative of the first two.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CM6XMM8c

Plaintiff-Petitioner JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Natasha Chesler, Esq.
          Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq.
          CHESLER MCCAFFREY
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 882-6407
          Facsimile: (310) 882-6359
          E-mail: nchesler@tbmlaw.net
                  tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net

Defendant-Respondent ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, is represented by:

          Amanda Kate Bonn, Esq.
          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com
                  mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com


AMAZON SERVICES: 9th Cir. Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolgin, Esq. -- mwolgin@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report that
two purported class representatives appealed an order compelling
arbitration in their putative class action lawsuit against Amazon
Services, LLC. The court affirmed, holding that the named
plaintiffs agreed to Amazon's "Business Solutions Agreement,"
which contained an arbitration clause agreeing to arbitrate "any
dispute" relating to the BSA or use of Amazon's services.  The
court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' argument that a second
"Marketplace Participation Agreement" agreement that they signed,
which contained a litigation forum selection clause, took
precedence over the arbitration clause in the BSA.  The court
rejected the argument that the MPA was a separately defined
"Program Policy" that was superior to the BSA, finding that the
MPA was an inferior "Seller Agreement" within the meaning of the
BSA.  The court further found that the fact that one of the
parties signed the MPA before signing the BSA was immaterial; the
BSA and its arbitration provisions represented the parties "entire
agreement," which superseded all prior agreements. Peters v.
Amazon Services, LLC, Case No. 14-35294 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016).


APPCO: Chamberlains Files Class Action Over Sham Contracting
------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that sticking cigarettes up bottoms, licking
underwear and cockfights.  Welcome to Australia's most humiliating
workplace, where hazing and bullying is allegedly rife.

Charity muggers, known as "chuggers", from marketing giant Appco,
which has raised money for Surf Life Saving Australia and the
Starlight Foundation, have allegedly been forced into embarrassing
acts and rituals if they aren't performing well at work.

Chamberlains Law Firm has launched a massive $85 million class
action suit against Appco for employees who feel ripped off.
Appco has been accused of sham contracting, where a company hires
independent contractors but treats them like employees.
According to Chamberlains Law Firm, people signed Independent
Contractor Agreements but Appco would control a contractor's work
life and talk about career progression as if they were employees.
Chamberlains Law Firm says because Appco treated workers that way,
they were entitled to better wages and benefits.  Some were
allegedly getting paid as little as $2.50 an hour.

Since the class action was launched, the company's "chuggers" have
revealed the hazing they had to endure if they didn't meet sales
targets.

Footage shows workers competing in "The Slug Race", where they
would slide along the ground on their backs.

Former employee Toby Yates told ABC it was embarrassing having to
compete in this bizarre ritual.

"But if you didn't the repercussions were even worse," he said.
Appco "chuggers" would sell raffle tickets and pins and former
employee Tyrone Corbett told ABC they would get 10 per cent
commission on what they sold at the end of the day.

He worked in Hobart, and witnessed some of the disturbing rituals
within the company, that Mr. Corbett said were created to "punish"
workers who didn't perform to a high standard.

"The first road trip was my very first week working there. That
was quite a scary experience simply from the behaviour that
happened there," he said.

"The very first day of this week-long road trip from Hobart to
Launceston the leaders had a meeting and they discussed what sort
of punishment should be involved for anyone who didn't hit their
daily target.

"Later that evening we all got back into the accommodation . . .
I saw a group of people huddling around one of these leaders who
did not hit their targets.

"As it turned out, the punishment for not hitting their target was
to shove a cigarette up your bottom, pull it out and then smoke
it."

More footage has emerged today of employees being forced to act
like chickens and participate in a cock fight.

Jacob Bywater is leading the class action against Appco and he
told Fairfax Media cock fights were a weekly occurrence.

"It was every Friday morning.  The idea is, like being a bird, you
wrestle each other to the ground, and you have to try and hold
them down for three seconds," he said.

"People would take part if they didn't hit sales targets or made
an error throughout the week or they may have been late to a
meeting."

Appco said in a statement it did not condone this "obscene
behaviour",

"These allegations describe outrageous and completely unacceptable
behaviour, which would not be tolerated by Appco Group Australia,"
the company's chief executive Martin Gaffney said.

"Appco would immediately sever ties with any marketing agency that
encouraged bullying and harassment activities.  And we would
require marketing agencies to weed out any independent contractors
who initiated such behaviour among fellow contractors."

Mr. Gaffney said the alleged rituals happened in 2014 and Appco
Australia was only just made aware of it in the wake of the class
action.

He said the company was "appalled and extremely disappointed"
these actions took place.

"They are being treated extremely seriously and will inform the
robust action plan Appco Australia is now putting in place."

Appco has appointed law firm Baker & McKenzie to conduct an
independent investigation into bullying and harassment claims and
will terminate contracts with any marketing company that endorsed
the rituals.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Meller" Suit Over ARC-520
-----------------------------------------------------------
YAKI J. MELLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER R. ANZALONE, and KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal., November 15, 2016),
alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose facts on its ARC-520 project, an RNAi-
based therapeutic in Phase IIb clinical efficacy studies to treat
chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


AUSTRALIA: Williamtown Residents Forced to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
News Of The Area reports that commenting on the class action
lawsuit filed against the Department of Defence, Greens NSW
Senator Lee Rhiannon said the Department's failure to properly act
on this issue has forced local residents to take action.

"It should never have come to this," Senator Rhiannon said.
"After over a year of anguish, patience and stoic resilience,
residents in Williamtown feel that they have exhausted all other
avenues and have filed a class action lawsuit against the
Department of Defence."

Senator Rhiannon wished the residents all the best in their quest
for justice and a solution to the uncertainty.

"The Defence Department have failed time and time again to
communicate clearly with the community, to set out plans for
remediation, to guarantee some level of compensation, and to enter
into critical discussions about property devaluations and
buybacks."

"Instead, the level of action we have seen from Defence has been
sluggish and passive at an absolute best.  At worst there is radio
silence."

Senator Rhiannon said the Greens have put questions to the
Department, asking for an update on how each item under the $55
million assistance package announced in June is progressing.

"We are currently awaiting a response," she said.

"We remain extremely concerned at the lack of information about
assistance offered to workers who may be exposed to toxic levels
of PFCs, including current and former Defence staff and
contractors."

"The Greens will continue to keep pressure on the Department to
clean up the contamination and provide fair compensation to
locals."


BAIS YAAKOV: Court Hears Oral Argument on Fax Waiver Order Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin O. Kay, Esq. -- justin.kay@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
on November 8, 2016, a three judge panel (Judges Brett M.
Kavanaugh, Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and A. Raymond Randolph) of the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral
argument in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234.  The
argument (which lasted ninety minutes) was divided into two
portions: argument regarding whether the FCC had authority to
require the inclusion of opt-out notices on solicited faxes, and
argument regarding whether the FCC was authorized to grant
retroactive waivers of that requirement.  The audio recording of
the argument is available here.

With regard to the FCC's authority to regulate solicited faxes,
the class action defendants argued that Congress drew a "stark"
distinction between solicited and unsolicited faxes and that the
FCC's requirement of an opt-out notice on solicited faxes
"obliterated" that distinction, that nothing in the TCPA
authorized the FCC to require opt-out notices on solicited faxes,
and that requiring an opt-out notice on solicited faxes posed
serious First Amendment concerns.  The FCC and the class action
plaintiffs argued in response that the FCC's imposition of
regulations on solicited faxes was a natural and necessary part of
the regulation of unsolicited faxes, and that there was nothing in
the TCPA prohibiting the FCC from regulating solicited faxes.

With regard to the FCC's authority to waive its regulation
requiring opt-out notices on solicited faxes, the class action
plaintiffs argued that the FCC did not have the right to use its
waiver authority to extinguish a statutory right of action; that
the regulation itself was clear despite any shortcomings in the
FCC orders regarding the regulation; that prudent counsel should
have advised clients to comply with the most restrictive reading
of the rule; that the FCC did not require any showing of actual
confusion to grant waivers, but rather had granted them based on a
"vapor" or "ether" of confusion; and that the standard the full
FCC created for granting waivers permitted granting waivers to
petitioners who admitted that they were simply unaware of the
regulations, and that denials of petitions based on ignorance of
the law was based on a standard that "the Bureau seems to have
created later on" and that "there is nothing in the [Anda] Order
that says ignorance of the TCPA, you don't get a waiver."  The FCC
argued in response that the order was flatly contradictory and
therefore set a presumption of confusion; that the waiver process
was "a mess of the agency's own making" and the FCC decided the
best way to clean up that mess was to grant retroactive waivers;
and that the violation complained of for which waivers were
granted was the agency's own rule, not an express statutory
requirement.  The FCC also expressed frustration that parties had
not sooner pointed out to the FCC the discrepancy in the order via
a petition for a declaratory ruling.

The panel was active from the start (Judge Pillard asked the first
question less than a minute into the argument), and the arguments
played out more through questions, answers, comments, and
prompting from the bench rather than through prepared remarks from
counsel.

Based on comments and lines of questioning, Judge Pillard appeared
to be quite skeptical of the class action defendants' arguments
regarding the ability of the FCC to regulate solicited faxes,
focusing instead on the policy goals driving the FCC's approach --
obtaining consent and facilitating its revocation, and stopping
"the problem" of unwanted faxes.  She also challenged the
arguments made by the FCC regarding the waiver process: she
asserted that the regulation itself was not confusing and that
granting waivers without any showing of actual confusion (and in
some cases based on ignorance of the regulation altogether)
appeared to be setting a very low bar, and suggested that when the
FCC was balancing the interests in granting a waiver to
defendants, it failed to properly consider the costs plaintiffs
had incurred over years in seeking to enforce a regulation that
the FCC then waived.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: "Castillo" Alleges IV Solution Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baxter International Inc.,
Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Hospira, Inc., Hospira Worldwide,
Inc. and B. Braun Medical, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
10584 (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2016), seeks permanent injunctive
relief that enjoins Defendants from violating the antitrust laws,
additional damages, penalties, and other monetary relief including
treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of
this suit, including reasonable attorney fees and such other and
further relief under the Sherman Act.

Baxter International Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Deerfield, Illinois. Baxter International manufactures and
sells IV Saline Solution throughout the United States.

Defendants are accused of illegally manipulating prices of Saline
Solution.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Thomas D. Brooks, Esq.
      Paul E. Slater, Esq.
      SPERLING & SLATER
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 641-3200
      Email: pes@sperling-law.com
             tdb@sperling-law.com

             - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10036-8718
      Tel: (917) 438-9189
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

     Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
     JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
     Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
     Guaynabo, PR 00968
     Tel: (787) 751-5290
     Email: juan@riverafont.com


BAYER: 14,000 People Join Xarelto Class Action in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------
Jan Keuchel and Christina ZÅhlke, writing for Handelsblatt Global,
report that Xarelto, one of the star drugs in pharmaceutical giant
Bayer's portfolio, could become a legal headache for its parent
company.

An investigation by Handelsblatt and German broadcaster WDR found
that Janssen Pharmaceutica, Bayer's development partner on
Xarelto, concealed a critical detail about the drug from U.S.
authorities for many years: the fact that many of the test devices
used in the study leading to its approval were defective.

Xarelto is an anti-coagulant medicine, which has brought the
company revenues of EUR2 billion ($2.2 billion) worldwide. But
there are fears it may cause serious side effects.

More than 14,000 plaintiffs -- including both people who took the
drugs and their relatives -- have launched a class action suit
against Bayer in U.S. courts.  They claim that Xarelto caused
severe hemorrhages, and, in some cases, death.  Bayer rejects the
claims


BERNALILLO, NM: Zuniga Appeals D.N.M. Decision to Tenth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Maria Zuniga, Emily Hernandez, Jennifer Gallegos,
Cassandra Gutierrez, Priscilla Gutierrez, Pat Vigil, Mindy Hoerter
and Deanna Miglio filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled Zuniga, et al. v. Bernalillo County, et al., Case
No. 1:11-CV-00877-JB-LAM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.

The appellate case is captioned as Zuniga, et al. v. Bernalillo
County, et al., Case No. 16-704, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The miscellaneous response for Bernalillo County, Julian Barela
and Dan Mayfield was due on November 21, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Maria Zuniga, Emily Hernandez, Jennifer
Gallegos, Cassandra Gutierrez, Priscilla Gutierrez, Pat Vigil,
Mindy Hoerter and Deanna Miglio, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Christopher Murray Moody, Esq.
          Repps D. Stanford, Esq.
          Whitney Warner, Esq.
          MOODY & WARNER, P.C.
          4169 Montgomery Boulevard, NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Telephone: (505) 944-0033
          Facsimile: (505) 944-0034
          E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com
                  stanford@nmlaborlaw.com
                  warner@nmlaborlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents BERNALILLO COUNTY, JULIAN BARELA and DAN
MAYFIELD are represented by:

          Emily A. Franke, Esq.
          Agnes Fuentevilla Padilla, Esq.
          BUTT THORNTON & BAEHR PC
          4101 Indian School Road NE, Suite 300-S
          P.O. Box 3170
          Albuquerque, NM 87190
          Telephone: (505) 884-0777
          Facsimile: (505) 889-8877
          E-mail: afpadilla@btblaw.com


BIG HEART: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Mawby" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Big Heart Pet Brands, Milo's Kitchen and The J.M.
Smucker Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Sharel Mawby v. Big Heart Pet Brands, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00296-HFS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Kansas City.

The appellate case is captioned as Sharel Mawby v. Big Heart Pet
Brands, et al., Case No. 16-8022, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent Sharel Mawby, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Lee Heinemann, Esq.
          Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
          Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
          SHANK & MOORE, LLC
          1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
          Mission Woods, KS 66205
          Telephone: (816) 471-0909
          E-mail: sjm@shankmoore.com

Petitioners-Defendants Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., Milo's Kitchen
and The J.M. Smucker Company are represented by:

          Gregory Khan Wu, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: gwu@shb.com


BURLINGTON CTY, NJ: Haas Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tammy Marie Haas filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Tammy Haas, et al. v. County of Burlington, et
al., Case No. 1-08-cv-01102, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
challenges Burlington County's strip searches in minor-offense
cases.  Ms. Haas was arrested in 2006 on a warrant that said she
had failed to pay $900 in child support.  Nine months pregnant,
Haas was strip-searched at the county's Minimum Security Facility
in Pemberton and ordered to take a shower.  She also was sprayed
with a delousing agent despite her "late-term pregnancy,"
according to the complaint.

Ms. Haas had questioned whether the strip search was necessary but
was told "it was policy," the Court documents said.  She also was
told to "bend over, cough and spread her buttocks," the suit said,
and the warrant was later determined to be in error.

The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Haas, et al. v. County of
Burlington, et al., Case No. 16-4032, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Clerk of the Third Circuit entered a Clerk Order stating that
counsel for Appellant has contacted the Court indicating that she
may be filing an emergency motion to stay the District Court
action pending the appeal.  The Clerk said that the order appealed
is not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and is
not otherwise appealable at this time.  Given this, any motion for
stay pending appeal must specifically address this Court's
authority over the appeal.  Appellees response to the stay motion
must also address the jurisdictional issue.  If Appellant does not
file a stay motion, the parties should instead file separate
written responses addressing this Courts authority over the appeal
within 14 days from the date of this order.

Plaintiff-Appellant TAMMY MARIE HAAS, Individually an on behalf of
a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, is represented by:

          Jamie B. Goldman, Esq.
          200 Centennial Avenue
          Piscataway, NJ 732-377-20

Plaintiff-Appellee CONRAD SZCZPANIAK is represented by:

          Lauren Plevinsky, Esq.
          WILLIAM RIBACK LLC
          132 North Haddon Avenue
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 857-008

               - and -

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (212) 838-3333
          Facsimile: (212) 838-3735
          E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com

Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, BURLINGTON COUNTY JAIL
and RONALD COX, both in his individual and Representative capacity
as Warden of the Burlington County Jail, are represented by:

          Michelle L. Corea, Esq.
          Laura Danks, Esq.
          CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A.
          8000 Midlantic Drive
          Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 914-2053
          Facsimile: (856) 235-2786
          E-mail: mcorea@capehart.com
                  ldanks@capehart.com


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Denial of Martin's Cert. Bid Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
affirmed the order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled ROBERT MARTIN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE et
al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. A145374.

In the class action case, Plaintiffs Robert Martin and Deborah
Goodwin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, sued Defendants California Physicians' Service, dba Blue
Shield of California (BSC), and Blue Shield of California Life &
Health Insurance Company (BSL) (collectively, Blue Shield).  The
Plaintiffs alleged Blue Shield violated certain California statues
regulating the closure of health plans to new membership by
pushing older, sicker consumers into lower-benefit, higher-
deductible coverage.  The trial court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action, concluding, in
part, that individualized issues predominated over common ones.

A copy of the order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/ItKvgZ from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Noteholders' Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
California Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
company is defending against a class action by beneficial owners
of unsecured notes.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a purported class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all beneficial owners
of our unsecured notes from November 12, 2015 to the present.  The
complaint alleges that our December 2015 debt exchange excluded
non-qualified institutional holders in violation of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939 and related law and, thereby, impaired their
rights to receive principal and interest payments.  The purported
class action seeks declaratory relief that the debt exchange and
the liens securing the new notes are null and void and that the
debt exchange resulted in a default.  The plaintiff also seeks
monetary damages and attorneys' fees."

"The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claims made by
the plaintiff."

The Company is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company operating properties exclusively within the
State of California.


CAMPOPIANO ROOFING: Faces "Harm" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD J. HARM, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, 4224 W. 23rd St. Cleveland, Ohio 44109
Plaintiff, vs. CAMPOPIANO ROOFING CO., c/o Michael J. O'Brien
627 West St. Clair Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02781 (N.D. Ohio, November 15, 2016), alleges that
Plaintiff not been paid for time spent traveling from jobsites in
which an overnight stay was required; was not paid at the correct
overtime rate when working prevailing wage jobs; and/or had time
docked from his pay although he actually worked the time in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CAMPOPIANO ROOFING CO. is a roofing manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Ave., N.W.
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Fax: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


CANADA: G20 Class-Actions Against Toronto Police Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that two
class-action lawsuits arising out of the chaotic Toronto G20
summit more than six years ago appear destined for trial after the
country's highest court refused on Nov. 10 to get involved.

Toronto's police authorities had wanted the Supreme Court of
Canada to stop the legal actions in their tracks.  The court,
however, declined.  It also ordered the police services to pay
costs of the appeal.

Sherry Good, one of the two lead plaintiffs, said she was
delighted the case could now move forward.

"We've been fighting for over six years now and we're committed to
another six if it's necessary," Ms. Good, 58, said in an
interview.  "We want justice no matter how long it takes."

The class actions were spawned by the violence-marred weekend in
June 2010 when police arrested or detained more than 1,000 people
in what was later described as one of the worst violations of
civil liberties in Canadian history.  Many of the detainees were
kept in appalling conditions at a makeshift detention centre in
Toronto.  Almost all were released without charge within 24 hours.

Ms. Good and co-plaintiff Tommy Taylor are seeking a court
declaration that class members' charter rights were violated. They
also are looking for damages they say would be strong "instruments
of behaviour modification."  It's not clear when any trial might
take place.

"Nothing is going to get in our way," Ms. Good said.  "This is
about freedom and democracy.  The police need to know we're not
going to stop until we make sure this never happens again."

After one false start and two bruising court battles, Ontario's
top court in April ruled that the two separate but related civil
actions -- one for people boxed in on the streets, the other for
those sent to the detention centre -- should go ahead.

In turning to the Supreme Court, the police services board argued
class actions were inappropriate.  Instead, the board maintained
any claims of wrongful arrest or detention should be treated
individually. It also suggested the formulations of the class
actions were unfair.

The board did not respond immediately to the Supreme Court
decision on Nov. 10.

Ms. Good's lawyers said police now risk multiple lawsuits if they
ever indiscriminately arrest entire crowds of demonstrators again.

"This case is about the right of everyday Canadians to publicly
speak their minds without being arbitrarily rounded up and thrown
in jail," lawyer Eric Gillespie said in a statement.

Ms. Good was among scores of people police "kettled" in torrential
rain at a downtown intersection, while Mr. Taylor was sent to the
makeshift east-end detention centre.

Both she and Mr. Taylor want damages for false arrest or
imprisonment, and violations of their constitutional rights.  They
maintain a senior officer gave orders for the indiscriminate
roundup of anyone present at various downtown locations --
including peaceful protesters, bystanders and journalists.  Police
also conducted "humiliating" strip searches and "needlessly beat
people," they say.

Last year, a tribunal convicted Toronto police Supt. Mark Fenton
of misconduct for ordering the mass arrests.  He was given a
formal reprimand and docked 30 days' vacation.  Mr. Fenton is
appealing.

In an even earlier ruling allowing the class actions, Divisional
Court said the mass arrests could be seen as "one of the hallmarks
of a police state."


CCDN LLC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Taylor" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Chris W. Taylor, William G. Harrison, Sr., Cathy Horton
Hunt, Sharon Southwood, Dorman Beasley and Brenda Beasley filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the originating cases
styled Chris W. Taylor v. Lee W. Bettis, Jr., et al., Case Nos.
7:09-cv-00183-F and 7:09-cv-00081-F, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Wilmington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chris Taylor
alleges in his complaint that the Defendants -- five companies and
11 people, eight of them attorneys -- charged at least 6,000
consumers more than $4,000 apiece for debt-relief services they
never delivered.  He said he had more than $30,000 in credit card
debt when he "scraped together" the $4,500 he paid in advance to
Defendant Credit Card Solution.

The appellate case is captioned as Chris W. Taylor v. Lee W.
Bettis, Jr., Case No. 16-2239, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Defendants-Appellees are LEE W. BETTIS, PAT LEIGH PITTMAN,
JOANNE K. PARTIN, ROBERT LOUIS EMANUEL, STEPHEN A. DUNN, RAYMOND
E. DUNN, JR., EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC, a North Carolina professional
limited liability company and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-
fact, and BETTIS DUNN & DUNN, a North Carolina general partnership
and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact.

The other Defendants are CCDN, LLC., a Nevada limited liability
company and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; LEGAL DEBT
CURE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company and 18 U.S.C.
1961(4) association-in-fact; R.K. LOCK & ASSOCIATES, d/b/a CCDN,
LLC., or The Credit Collections Defense Network, an Illinois sole
proprietorship and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; JEN
DEVINE; ROBERT K. LOCK, JR.; COLLEEN LOCK; PHILIP M. MANGER; S.
JOHN HAGENSTEIN; THE CREDIT CARD SOLUTION, a Texas sole
proprietorship and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; ROBERT
M. LINDSEY; BARRISTER LEGAL SERVICES PC, an Illinois corporation
and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; RICHARD JUDE WASIK; W.
ANDREW ARNOLD; LAW OFFICES OF W, ANDREW ARNOLD PC, a South
Carolina corporation and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact;
RICHARD D. RUSS; ERNEST GREG BRITT, JR.; R&G MARKETING, a Florida
general partnership and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact;
EXCELL MARKETING LLC, a Florida limited liability company and 18
U.S.C. 1961 (4) association-in-fact; RODNEY EMIL BRISCO; DEBT
JURISPRUDENCE INC., a Missouri corporation and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4)
association-in-fact; AEGIS CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation and
18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; M. DAVID KRAMER; MARCIA M.
MURPHY; and TRACY WEBSTER.

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRIS W. TAYLOR, for himself and all others
similarly situated, WILLIAM G. HARRISON, SR., CATHY HORTON HUNT,
SHARON SOUTHWOOD, DORMAN BEASLEY and BRENDA BEASLEY are
represented by:

          Christopher Wyatt Livingston, Esq.
          2154 Dowd Dairy Road
          White Oak, NC 28399-0000
          Telephone: (910) 876-7001

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Philip Alan Collins, Esq.
          BAILEY & DIXON
          P. O. Box 1351
          Raleigh, NC 27602-1351
          Telephone: (919) 828-0731
          Facsimile: (919) 828-6592
          E-mail: pcollins@bdixon.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a common
stock owner has filed a class-action lawsuit against Chesapeake
Energy Corp., Robert Douglas Lawler, and Domenic J. Dell'Osso,
Jr., company and its board of officers, citing alleged violation
of federal law.

Terrence Saunders filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Oct. 4, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against the defendants alleging that
they made false and misleading statements regarding the company's
operations.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from purchasing stocks at artificially inflated prices.
The plaintiff holds Chesapeake Energy Corp., Robert Douglas
Lawler, and Domenic J. Dell'Osso, Jr. responsible because the
defendants allegedly provided false and misleading materials to
the public.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks pay damages to
the plaintiff, interest, court costs and any further relief this
court grants.  He is represented by William B. Federman --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- of Federman & Sherwood in Oklahoma City;
Jeremy A. Lieberman, J. Alexander Hood II and Marc C. Gorrie of
Pomerantz LLP in New York; and Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz
LLP in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma Case
number 5:16-cv-01150-R


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Files Chapter 11 to Avert Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
ChinaCast Education Corp. took shelter in New York bankruptcy
court from investors holding a $65.8 million judgment over the
alleged corporate looting that brought down the now-defunct e-
learning company.

The Nov. 9 chapter 11 filing will allow ChinaCast to continue
pursuing its former executives for alleged embezzlement and
securities fraud while shielding it from a pending investor class-
action lawsuit, Chief Financial Officer Douglas Woodrum said in
court papers.

Starting in 2012, allegations against ChinaCast's former top brass
have sparked a tangle of litigation stretching across courts from
Delaware to Hong Kong, including seven lawsuits filed by the
company itself.  Those cases revolve around ChinaCast founder Ron
Chan Tze Ngon's alleged embezzlement, including a $120 million
withdrawal from company accounts.

The fraud allegations surfaced in 2012 and led Nasdaq to delist
the company, which boasted a $200 million market capitalization at
the time.  The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Mr. Chan
and an alleged accomplice in 2013 and kicked ChinaCast stock off
the over-the-counter market last year.

In a separate case in California, a group of shareholders are
suing over losses from the alleged embezzlement, one in a string
of accounting and disclosure debacles to hit U.S.-traded Chinese
companies in recent years.  The attorneys defending ChinaCast in
the California suit quit in January over unpaid fees.  On
Nov. 22, a federal judge entered a $65.8 million default judgment
against the company in favor of the investors.

Shareholders are often barred from suing a company over corporate
wrongdoing that also harmed the company.  But the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year allowed the plaintiffs to
proceed, ruling that ChinaCast could be held responsible for
Mr. Chan's actions under the circumstances.

ChinaCast's bankruptcy plan proposes to treat the class action
claims like stock, which is almost always erased in chapter 11,
according to company Mr. Woodrum. T he company ran up $9.1 million
in unpaid legal bills defending itself against its investors,
leaving law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson as the
largest creditor, he said.  An attorney for the investors declined
to comment on Nov.10.

While ChinaCast has no secured debt, court papers show it borrowed
$9.3 million from investors including Fir Tree Partners, Ashford
Capital Management and Columbia Pacific Advisors to finance its
lawsuits against Mr. Chan and others implicated in the alleged
fraud.  Mr. Woodrum said the company plans to establish a
litigation trust "which will then continue pursuit of the recovery
actions until completed."

The alleged looting scandal is among the most prominent in a wave
of accounting and disclosure problems at U.S.-traded Chinese
companies that cost shareholders billions of dollars. In its wake,
U.S. regulators took aim at Chinese affiliates of the largest
global accounting firms for refusing to disclose information about
their audits.

Last year, Chinese units of the Big Four accounting firms paid
$500,000 each to settle accusations that they had wrongly refused
to hand over audit-work papers about Chinese clients under SEC
investigation.

ChinaCast's auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, also faced a
lawsuit from the company's shareholders, although a federal
appeals court ruled in its favor in April.

The law firm Klestadt Winters Jureller Southard & Stevens is
representing ChinaCast in its chapter 11 case, which has been
assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in Manhattan.


CITIBANK NA: Stitt Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gloria Stitt, Ronald Stitt, Mark Zirlott and Terri
Louise Zirlott filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Gloria Stitt, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No.
4:12-cv-03892-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Stitt, et al. v.
Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No. 16-17008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10,
2016, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has cleared
JPMorgan Chase and Citibank of claims they defrauded homeowners,
who couldn't pay their mortgages during the Great Recession,
bringing a contentious four-year battle (in two cases, including
the Stitt Case) to a close.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in two orders issued late on Oct. 5,
that the Plaintiffs in two cases had failed to assert claims of
fraud and unjust enrichment against Chase and Citibank over what
the homeowners said were unjustified fees to inspect their homes
after they went into foreclosure.

According to Citibank, loan servicers are required to periodically
inspect delinquent properties to ensure they're being maintained
and to protect their value.

The July 2012 suits brought by eight plaintiffs in Alabama,
California, Oregon, Maryland, New York and Tennessee claimed that
neither bank was authorized to charge the inspection fees, and
that the banks misled them into believing the fees were valid.

Both sets of plaintiffs also accused the banks of hiding the
charges on their mortgage statements under vague titles like
"miscellaneous fees" and "corporate advances."

Judge Gonzalez Rogers refused to certify state and nationwide
classes in the cases last year, leaving intact only the
plaintiffs' individual fraud and unjust enrichment claims, among
others. Those claims arose out of a combined $287.15 in inspection
fees charged to the Chase plaintiffs and $310.50 charged to the
Citi plaintiffs.

In granting both banks' motions for summary judgment on the fraud
claims, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that the plaintiffs'
assertions that Chase and Citibank misrepresented the fees were
lacking as a matter of law.

"This is an opinion of law not subject to a fraud claim," Judge
Gonzalez Rogers said in both rulings.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 30, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 30, 2016;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Gloria Stitt, Ronald Stitt,
      Mark Zirlott and Terri Louise Zirlott is due on February 8,
      2017;

   -- Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.'s answering
      brief is due on March 10, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants GLORIA STITT, RONALD STITT, MARK ZIRLOTT and
TERRI LOUISE ZIRLOTT, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mark Philip Pifko, Esq.
          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Karim Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com
                  dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
          David A. Parsiola, Esq.
          COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR LLC
          8397 Highway 23
          Belle Chasse, LA 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110
          E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com
                  dparsiola@cossichlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees CITIBANK, N.A., a national association, and
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., a New York corporation, are represented by:

          Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
          Stephen Joseph Kane, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8474
          E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com
                  skane@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-5173
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com


COMENITY LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California man alleges an Ohio corporation continues to call him
in an attempt to collect a debt from an unknown individual.

David Meske filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated on Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Comenity LLC alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has been
receiving automated calls for years now on his cellular telephone
from the defendant to contact an unknown individual.  He alleges
that he demanded that defendant cease calling him but the
defendant continues to call him.

The plaintiff holds Comenity LLC responsible because the defendant
allegedly engaged in an unlawful practice of using an autodialer
to place calls to cellular phones and without prior express
consent to place the calls.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and other
relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Lemberg Law
LLC.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-08118


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Conspired to Fix Prices, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Continental Automotive Electronics and Continental Automotive
Korea conspired to fix prices on auto instrument panel clusters
sold in Canada from 1998 to 2012, a class claims in Vancouver
British Columbia Supreme Court.


CORMEDIX INC: NJ Court Dismissed "Li" Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Cormedix Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, that the
New Jersey Court has granted the Cormedix Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the "Li" securities class action.

The Company said, "on July 7, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was commenced against our company and certain of our
current and former officers in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et
al., Case 3:15-cv-05264 (the "Securities Class Action"). On
September 4, 2015, two individuals, Shahm Martini and Paul
Chretien (the "Martini Group"), filed a Motion to Appoint Lead
Plaintiff. On that same date, another individual, Elaine Wood,
filed a competing Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff. On September
18, 2015, the Martini Group withdrew its motion. Thereafter, on
September 22, 2015, the Court appointed Elaine Wood as Lead
Plaintiff and, on October 2, 2015, appointed the Rosen Law Firm as
Lead Counsel."

"On December 1, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
asserting claims that our company and Steven Lefkowitz, Randy
Milby and Harry O'Grady (the "Cormedix Defendants") violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended
Complaint also names as defendants several unrelated entities that
allegedly were paid stock promoters. Lead Plaintiff alleges
generally that the Cormedix Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, the competitive landscape for our Neutrolin product and
the alleged use of stock promoters.  The Amended Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"On February 1, 2016, the Cormedix Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint
on the grounds, among others, that the Amended Complaint fails to
adequately allege: (1) material misstatements or omissions; (2)
scienter by any of the Cormedix Defendants; or (3) loss causation.
The Court heard oral argument on this motion on July 18, 2016 and
took the matter under advisement.

"In an order dated October 27, 2016, the Court granted the
Cormedix Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed with
prejudice the Amended Complaint. We intend to continue to
vigorously defend this case."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: DeCarlo Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jason DeCarlo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Jason DeCarlo v. COSTCO, et al., Case No. 3:14-
cv-00202-JAH-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
(Case No. 37-2013-00074221-CU-MC-CTL) was removed from the removed
from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-00202-JAH-BLM to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that during eye examinations at the
Defendant's retail locations, the examining optometrists obtain
medical information from patients that the optometrists then
provide to the Defendant's retail employees for nonmedical reasons
without authorization.  The Plaintiff alleges that this practice
violates the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which
prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical
information.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason DeCarlo v. COSTCO, et
al., Case No. 16-56602, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Jason DeCarlo's opening brief is due on
      February 3, 2017;

   -- Appellees Costco Wholesale Corporation and MBNR, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on March 6, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JASON DECARLO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian Kabateck, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN & KELLNER, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Kevin Frederick Quinn, Esq.
          Benjamin Israel Siminou, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTOLOTTA AND MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92103-6625
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: quinn@tbmlawyers.com
                  siminou@tbmlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, is represented by:

          David Frank McDowell, Jr., Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite # 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5383
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com

Defendant-Appellee MBNR, INC., a New Mexico corporation, is
represented by:

          Martin D. Bern, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4021
          E-mail: Martin.Bern@mto.com


COVISINT CORP: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for Dec. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the hearing on
Court approval of the settlement in the Desrocher class action
lawsuit is scheduled for December 13, 2016.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us, our directors and former
directors, and certain of our officers and former officers
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with
Covisint's initial public offering ("IPO") and seeking unspecified
damages. These lawsuits were consolidated in the action entitled
Desrocher v. Covisint Corporation, et al., No. 14-cv-03878 (the
"Securities Class Action")."

"On October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of
Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration
statement contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of
material facts related to the Company's projected revenues for
fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements regarding the
Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known
trends, uncertainties and significant risk factors as required to
be disclosed by Regulation S-K.

"On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and
settle the Securities Class Action (the "Settlement"). The
Settlement was reached after the Court denied defendants' motions
to dismiss and granted class certification of a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's stock in and/or traceable to
the Company's IPO on or about September 26, 2013, seeking to
pursue remedies under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

"The Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for
a payment by the defendants of $8.0 million. The Company's
uninsured portion of the settlement amount is $0.4 million, which
was recorded as a liability as of March 31, 2016 and paid in July
2016. The hearing on Court approval of the Settlement is currently
scheduled for December 13, 2016."

Covisint provides a cloud platform for the development of
identity-centric and Internet of Things solutions.


CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Scott" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cricket Communications, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Michael Scott v. Cricket Communications,
LLC, Case Nos. 1:15-cv-03330-GLR and 1:15-cv-03759-GLR, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Scott v. Cricket
Communications, LLC, Case No. 16-2300, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge George L. Russell, III, granted the Plaintiff's motions to
remand and to strike new materials and arguments or for leave to
file a surreply.

Michael Scott filed a putative Class Action Complaint on September
24, 2015, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Scott
I).  Scott defines the class as "all Maryland citizens who,
between July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile
telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's
CDMA network."  Scott raises a single claim for violation of the
MMWA stemming from alleged breaches of express warranties and the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose.  The Scott I and Scott II were removed to the District
Court.

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

   -- Initial forms are due within 14 days;
   -- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on December 19, 2016; and
   -- Response Brief is due on January 20, 2017.

Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL A. SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
          Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON & WOLF, CHTD
          102 West Pennsylvania Avenue
          Towson, MD 21204-0000
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com
                  mwolf@gordon-wolf.com

Defendant-Appellant CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, f/k/a Cricket
Communications, Inc., is represented by:

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          Charles Alan Rothfeld, Esq.
          Matthew A. Waring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3233
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5233
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  crothfeld@mayerbrown.com
                  mwaring@mayerbrown.com


DETROIT, MI: Can Continue to Shut Water Service, 6th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Detroit can continue to shut off water service to residents
unable to pay their water bills after the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit ruled on November 14, there is no
fundamental right to affordable water service.

After Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in July
2013, the city began shutting off the water service of residents
who failed to pay their bills.  In 2015, Detroit shut off water
service to more than 20,000 homes, depriving many low-income
families with children of running water.

A class of Detroit residents asked the bankruptcy court to issue a
permanent injunction prohibiting Detroit from shutting off their
water based on an asserted "right to water service at a price they
can afford to pay."

Plaintiff John Smith testified that the city terminated his water
service for three to five months in early 2014. Plaintiff Nicole
Hill said her water was shut off three different times between
2014 and 2016, and anticipates her water will be shut off a fourth
time because she cannot afford her August water bill.

However, a federal judge dismissed their suit, and the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on November 14, that there is no cognizable
property right to affordable water service.

"A right of this nature is not rooted in our nation's traditions
or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Judge Richard
Griffin wrote for a three-judge panel.

Due process requires only that Detroit's water rates reasonably
reflect the cost of providing the service, not that the rate
structure reflect the customers' ability to pay, the panel said.

Further, Section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code explicitly prohibits
the court from interfering with a municipality's exercise of
governmental power.

"Preliminary or permanent injunctions directing [the Detroit Water
and Sewerage Department, or DWSD] to stop terminations or to
provide water service -- including service at a specific price --
necessarily 'interfere[s] with' the city's 'governmental powers,'
its 'property [and] revenues,' as well as its 'use [and] enjoyment
of . . . income-producing property,'" Griffin said. "A declaration
that DWSD's practices are illegal or unconstitutional does the
same. Section 904 strips the bankruptcy court of authority to
order anything of the sort."

The Sixth Circuit said it was particularly loath to wade into the
issue given the massive scope of Detroit's reorganization. At the
time it filed bankruptcy, the city had $18 billion in debt,
hundreds of millions of dollars in negative cash flow, and a
failing water and sewer system.

"The bankruptcy court bore responsibility for approving a plan of
adjustment equally vast in its aim to remedy these conditions.
Concerns for state sovereignty loom larger with so much at stake,"
Griffin said.

The panel said it needed to preserve the delicate balance of
state-federal sovereignty by ensuring that bankruptcy power cannot
be used to indirectly dictate how a debtor city should be
governed.


DEX MEDIA: Kopp Appeals From Decision in "Fulmer" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Randy Kopp filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the original lawsuit entitled Bruce Fulmer v. Scott Klein, et
al., Case No. 3:09-CV-2354, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce Fulmer v. Scott Klein, et
al., Case No. 16-11590, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Dec. 10,
2009, Bruce Fulmer, a former Idearc Media employee, who has a
history of litigation against the Company, individually and behalf
of others allegedly similarly situated, filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas Division), against certain officers,
directors and members of the Company's Executive Benefits
Committee.  The Plaintiff claims the Defendants breached fiduciary
duties in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act in
administrating various savings plans from November 17, 2006, to
March 31, 2009, and seeks to recover losses to the plans.

On April 1, 2010, Randy Kopp, another former Idearc Media employee
filed a similar case, which has been consolidated with the Fulmer
matter.

The Plaintiffs originally alleged, among other claims, that the
Defendants breached a duty of prudence, duty of loyalty, and duty
to monitor by wrongfully allowing all the plans to invest in
Idearc's common stock.

In 2013, Dex One Corp., formerly known as R.H. Donnelley Corp.,
and SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc., sought Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection to effectuate a merger.

Plaintiff-Appellant RANDY KOPP, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROGER F. CLAXTON
          10000 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75231-0000
          Telephone: (214) 969-9029
          Facsimile: (214) 953-0583
          E-mail: roger@claxtonlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          440 Park Avenue, S.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Defendants-Appellees SCOTT W. KLEIN, DONALD B. REED, STEPHEN L.
ROBERTSON, THOMAS S. ROGERS, PAUL E. WEAVER, JOHN J. MUELLER,
JERRY V. ELLIOT, SAMUEL D. JONES, KATHERINE J. HARLESS, EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, GEORGIA SCAIFE, WILLIAM GIST, STEVEN GABERICH,
CLIFFORD WILSON, BILLY MUNDY, ANDREW COTICCHIO, HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-20 are represented by:

          James Philip Gillespie, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          655 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: james.gillespie@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Andrew George Horne, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: andrew.horne@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Dee J. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
          KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2500
          Facsimile: (817) 878-9280
          E-mail: dee_kelly@khh.com


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Estler Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Thomas Estler, Steven Park and Blake Ruehrwein filed an
appeal from a District Court judgment, dated October 5, 2016, in
their lawsuit entitled Estler v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., Case No.
16-cv-932, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Estler v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 16-3762, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10,
2016, Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Case.

Thomas Estler, Blake Ruehrwein, and Steven Park, commenced the
purported class action lawsuit asserting claims arising from an
alleged unlawful surcharge, disguised as a "sales tax," on
prepackaged coffee at Dunkin' Donuts stores in New York City.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, negligence, fraud, and violations of New York General
Business Law section 349.  The defendants are Dunkin' Brands,
Inc., four named Dunkin' Donuts stores, and 500 unnamed Dunkin'
Donuts stores in New York.

Judge Schofield dismissed the complaint because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims asserted.  At its
heart, the case concerns a New York State sales tax that the
plaintiffs alleged was improperly charged.  Judge Schofield
pointed out that New York law is clear that section 1139 provides
the exclusive remedy for the refund of any tax "erroneously,
illegally or unconstitutionally collected,"  and federal district
courts in New York have found that the administrative remedy set
forth in section 1139 is the exclusive remedy.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Estler, Blake Ruehrwein and Steven
Park, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Zachary J. Liszka, Esq.
          MAYER LAW GROUP LLC
          1180 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (347) 762-5131
          E-mail: zachliszka@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Dunkin' Brands, Inc., is represented by:

          Ronald David Degen, Esq.
          O'ROURKE & DEGEN, PLLC
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-4530
          Facsimile: (212) 385-9813
          E-mail: rdegen@odlegal.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Yaffe, Esq.
          GRAY PLANT MOOTY MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          The Watergate
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 295-2200
          E-mail: eric.yaffe@gpmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Dunkin' Donuts Store, #350125; Dunkin' Donuts
Store, #350126; and Dunkin' Donuts Store, #350127, are represented
by:

          Christopher G. Kelly, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 513-3200
          E-mail: christopher.kelly@hklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Dunkin' Donuts Store, #345768, is represented
by:

          Joanne Marie Frasca Wilcome, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
          320 West 37th Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (973) 228-4909
          E-mail: Joanne@paslawfirm.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Filed After Stocks Fell
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Dynavax Technologies stock
fell from $11.60 to $4.10 this month after its hepatitis drug
Heplisav-B was found to be dangerous, shareholders claim in two
federal class actions.


EAGLE ROAD: Oklahoma Residents File Class Action Over Quakes
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Juozapavicius and Tim Talley, writing for The Associated
Press, report that residents of a town hit by Oklahoma's strongest
earthquake have filed a class-action lawsuit against dozens of
energy companies, accusing them of triggering destructive temblors
by injecting wastewater from oil and natural gas production
underground.

Pawnee residents filed the suit on Nov. 17 in district court
against 27 companies, saying they operate wastewater injection
wells even though they know the method causes earthquakes.  The
lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount for property damage and
reduced value, plus emotional distress.

A magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck the town of about 2,200 in
September and the lawsuit claims 52 more have hit the area since.
On Nov. 6, a magnitude 5.0 quake damaged dozens of buildings in
nearby Cushing, a town that is home to one of the world's largest
oil hubs.

Oklahoma has had thousands of earthquakes in recent years, with
nearly all traced to underground wastewater disposal.  Some
scientists say that the high-pressure injection of massive amounts
of chemical-laced wastewater deep in the earth induces the quakes.
Regulators have asked oil and gas producers to either close
injection wells or reduce the volume of fluids they inject.

Residents and environmental groups in neighboring states have sued
energy companies curb or stop similar operations.  Quakes in north
central Arkansas all but stopped after the Arkansas Oil and Gas
Commission voted to ban wells for the disposal of natural gas
drilling fluids in July 2011.  In 2014, a Prague, Oklahoma,
resident sued two companies on the same grounds after a magnitude
5.6 temblor rattled her town in 2011.

Two of the companies identified in the Pawnee lawsuit, Eagle Road
Oil, LLC and Cummings Oil Company, did not immediately return
messages seeking comment on Nov. 18.  The other 25 companies were
not identified in the suit.

The lawsuit claims that companies are showing "reckless disregard
for public or private safety," by continuing to operate the
injection wells in the area.

"We have clients who don't allow their children to go upstairs
because they're afraid the roof will fall in on them," said
Curt Marshall, an attorney for the residents.  "There's a lot of
fear; when is the next big one?"

Mr. Marshall estimated that hundreds of homes in Pawnee have been
affected by the quakes, sustaining damage ranging from cracks in
walls, foundations and storm shelters to short-circuited
electrical outlets.

A 2015 study by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested that
Oklahoma's industrial activities, such as natural gas and oil
production, have caused the sharp rise in earthquakes in the past
100 years.

Despite the criticism of wastewater disposal, Oklahoma oil and gas
producers said on Nov. 18 they are enthusiastic about new drilling
opportunities in two recently discovered oil-and-gas rich sites in
south-central Oklahoma that don't produce large amounts of
wastewater.

The South Central Oklahoma Oil Province, centered in three
counties southwest of Oklahoma City, and the Sooner Trend Anadarko
Basin Canadian and Kingfisher Counties west of Oklahoma City, are
among the nation's largest oil and gas fields.


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Ellinghaus Appeals From E.D.N.Y. Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Julia Ellinghaus, Debra Rubin Pataky, John Pataky and
Mary Jane Whalen filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion
and judgment, both dated September 30, 2016, and entered in the
lawsuit entitled Ellinghaus v. Educational Testing Service, Case
No. 15-cv-3442, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip).

The appellate case is captioned as Ellinghaus v. Educational
Testing Service, Case No. 16-3691, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a typo in the
June 6, 2015 SAT test has brought three nationwide class actions
against the Educational Testing Service and The College Board,
which had to throw out results from the test section.

The typo told students they had 25 minutes for one test section,
though they should have had only 20 minutes.  Some proctors caught
the error and gave the students only 20 minutes, but some gave
them 25 minutes.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          ADHOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
          THE WILNER FIRM
          444 East Duval Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 446-9817
          Facsimile: (904) 446-9825
          E-mail: Rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Janine Pollack, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4710
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 946-9453
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          312 South 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees Educational Testing Service and The College
Board are represented by:

          Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7294
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Reached Settlement of Stockholders' Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle all outstanding claims
in a class action lawsuit.

On January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf
of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph
Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265
EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00374 EMC.

The complaints have now been consolidated under the caption, In Re
Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265
EMC. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based upon alleged public misrepresentations and seeks
the recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing
the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all
outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an undisclosed
sum, the entirety of which will be borne by the Company's insurer.
The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the United
States District Court of the Northern District of California.

The Company is an energy solutions provider to industrial fluid
flow markets worldwide.


ENTRUST ENERGY: Faces "Henderson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HENDERSON, individually, and on behalf of ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ENTRUST ENERGY INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03366 (S.D. Tex., November 15, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages for hours worked while
performing commission only sales duties and off the clock work
performed for Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed "Putative Class" are current and former employees of
Defendant who work, or have worked, for Defendant as "Sales
Managers" and "Sales Associates" and whose job duties included
door to door energy sales to potential customers, training
employees on door to door energy sales and supervising employees
who engaged in door to door energy sales.

Entrust Energy, Inc. provides electricity and natural gas to
residential customers in Texas, Illinois, Maryland, New York,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Stipulation to Dismiss OT Claims Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
counsel in the "Banta" class action has filed a stipulation
requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the overtime
claims.

Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against
American Medical Response, Inc., and certain subsidiaries in
California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.
On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action. In these cases, the
plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay
wages, including overtime wages, in compliance with California
law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or
pay premium compensation for missed breaks. The plaintiffs are
seeking to certify classes on these claims and are seeking lost
wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees under California
law.

While certification of the rest period claims in the consolidated
Karapetian/ Aguilar case was denied, the Court certified classes
on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in
compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that
AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an
unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees.

On October 13, 2015, the Court decertified all classes in the
Karapetian/ Aguilar case, a decision that is being appealed.

In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and
rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that
plaintiff's counsel appealed. The appeal was denied because of the
pendency of other class and representative claims in the case. The
Court indicated that it would certify a class on overtime claims;
however, in July 2016, Banta's counsel filed a stipulation
requesting that the Court decertify and dismiss the overtime
claims.

In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal
and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern
California, a decision that is being appealed; while the Court
certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision.

The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any.

The Company's business is conducted primarily through two
operating subsidiaries, EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), its
facility-based and post-acute care physician services segment, and
American Medical Response, Inc., including its affiliates ("AMR"),
its healthcare transportation services segment.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "Anderson" Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
time for defendants to move or answer with respect to the amended
complaint in the case, Anderson v. Sanger et al., has not yet
expired.

On June 15, 2016, the Company, AmSurg Corp., a Tennessee
corporation ("AmSurg"), and New Amethyst Corp., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
AmSurg ("New Amethyst"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company and
AmSurg will combine in an all-stock merger of equals. Upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, AmSurg will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger
1"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation,
immediately after which the Company will merge with and into New
Amethyst ("Merger 2" and together with Merger 1, the "Mergers"),
with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation. Upon
the closing of the Mergers, the name of the combined company will
be changed to "Envision Healthcare Corporation".

Following the announcement of the proposed Mergers, a purported
stockholder of the Company filed a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit against the members of the Company's Board and
Barclays PLC in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware on
July 15, 2016. The case is captioned Anderson v. Sanger et al.,
C.A.No. 12561-CB (Del. Ch.).

On September 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which alleges that the members of Envision Healthcare's Board
violated their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
Mergers and that Barclays PLC aided and abetted those breaches.
Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Mergers
from proceeding or, alternatively, damages in the event the
Mergers are consummated.

The time for defendants to move or answer with respect to the
amended complaint has not yet expired. The Company believes this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

The Company's business is conducted primarily through two
operating subsidiaries, EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), its
facility-based and post-acute care physician services segment, and
American Medical Response, Inc., including its affiliates ("AMR"),
its healthcare transportation services segment.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "Voth" Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
time for defendants to move or answer with respect to the "Voth"
class action complaint has not yet expired.

On June 15, 2016, the Company, AmSurg Corp., a Tennessee
corporation ("AmSurg"), and New Amethyst Corp., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
AmSurg ("New Amethyst"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company and
AmSurg will combine in an all-stock merger of equals. Upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, AmSurg will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger
1"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation,
immediately after which the Company will merge with and into New
Amethyst ("Merger 2" and together with Merger 1, the "Mergers"),
with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation. Upon
the closing of the Mergers, the name of the combined company will
be changed to "Envision Healthcare Corporation".

On August 31, 2016, a purported Envision Healthcare stockholder
filed a putative stockholder class action against Envision, the
members of Envision Healthcare's Board, AmSurg and New Amethyst in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
case is captioned Voth v. Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. et
al., No. 1:16-cv-02213 (D. Colo.). The lawsuit alleges that
Envision Healthcare and the members of Envision Healthcare's Board
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating a false and misleading
registration statement in connection with the proposed Mergers and
that the members of Envision Healthcare's Board, AmSurg and New
Amethyst violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of
their purported status as controlling persons of Envision
Healthcare. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the Mergers from proceeding or, alternatively, rescission of the
Mergers or damages in the event the Mergers are consummated.

On September 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
discovery. On October 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of
withdrawal of the motion for expedited discovery, and on October
21, 2016, the Court denied the motion as moot.

The time for defendants to respond to the motion or to move or
answer with respect to the complaint has not yet expired. The
Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company's business is conducted primarily through two
operating subsidiaries, EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), its
facility-based and post-acute care physician services segment, and
American Medical Response, Inc., including its affiliates ("AMR"),
its healthcare transportation services segment.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Defending Against "LeMay" Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
time for defendants to move or answer with respect to the LeMay
class action complaint has not yet expired.

On June 15, 2016, the Company, AmSurg Corp., a Tennessee
corporation ("AmSurg"), and New Amethyst Corp., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of
AmSurg ("New Amethyst"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company and
AmSurg will combine in an all-stock merger of equals. Upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, AmSurg will merge with and into New Amethyst ("Merger
1"), with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation,
immediately after which the Company will merge with and into New
Amethyst ("Merger 2" and together with Merger 1, the "Mergers"),
with New Amethyst continuing as the surviving corporation. Upon
the closing of the Mergers, the name of the combined company will
be changed to "Envision Healthcare Corporation".

On September 8, 2016, a purported Envision Healthcare stockholder
filed a putative stockholder class action against Envision, the
members of Envision Healthcare's Board, AmSurg and New Amethyst in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
case is captioned LeMay v. Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. et
al., No. 1:16-cv-02265 (D. Colo.). The lawsuit alleges that
Envision Healthcare and the members of Envision Healthcare's Board
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating a false and misleading
registration statement in connection with the proposed Mergers and
that the members of Envision Healthcare's Board, AmSurg and New
Amethyst violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of
their purported status as controlling persons of Envision. Among
other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Mergers from
proceeding or, alternatively, rescission of the Mergers or damages
in the event the Mergers are consummated.

The time for defendants to move or answer with respect to the
complaint has not yet expired. The Company believes this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company's business is conducted primarily through two
operating subsidiaries, EmCare Holdings, Inc. ("EmCare"), its
facility-based and post-acute care physician services segment, and
American Medical Response, Inc., including its affiliates ("AMR"),
its healthcare transportation services segment.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Dougherty" Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action by Kevin L. Dougherty
remains pending.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company
and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). An amended complaint
was filed on May 20, 2016. The amended complaint alleges that the
Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly
failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that
the Food and Drug Administration would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product
candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price
between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Esperion is a pharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of patients with
elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL-C.


ETSY INC: "Altayyar" Suit in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the "Altayyar" class action
lawsuit is in the early stage of the litigation.

On May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company and certain officers. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and
including May 10, 2015. It asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with
respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy operates markets where people around the world connect, both
online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique goods.


ETSY INC: Cervantes-Weiss Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Cervantes and Weiss
consolidated action remains stayed.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in
the Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain officers, directors and underwriters.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As in the Altayyar litigation, the
complaint alleges misrepresentations in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against these consolidated actions. On
February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to stay
the consolidated actions.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Etsy operates markets where people around the world connect, both
online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique goods.


EVERYDAY HEALTH: Faces "Hanson" Securities Suit Over Ziff Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HANSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC., DOUG MCCORMICK, BEN
WOLIN, HABIB KAIROUZ, DAVID GOLDEN, SHARON WIENBAR, MYRTLE POTTER,
DANA EVAN, and LAIZER KORNWASSER, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
08847 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2016), is a securities class action
in connection with the proposed merger of Everyday Health with
Ziff Davis, LLC.

EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC. develops and operates digital marketing and
communications platforms for healthcare marketers seeking to
engage consumers and healthcare professionals by providing health
and wellness content through websites, mobile applications, and
social media.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Fl.
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 601-2610
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Class C Reclassification Litig. Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, In re Facebook, Inc. Class C
Reclassification Litig.

The Company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to
create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital
stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two
shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of
Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification). Following
our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on April 29,
2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark
Zuckerberg. The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption
In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No.
12286-VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Reclassification. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to
enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees. We believe that the lawsuits are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted."

"In April 2016, our board of directors approved the
Reclassification by approving amendments to our restated
certificate of incorporation (the New Certificate) that would,
among other things, create non-voting Class C capital stock. The
Class C capital stock will have the same rights and powers, rank
equally (including as to dividends and distributions, mergers or
similar business combinations, and in connection with any
liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the corporation), share
ratably and be identical in all other respects and as to all
matters to the shares of Class A and Class B common stock, except
for voting rights and as expressly provided in the New
Certificate. The New Certificate was approved by our stockholders
on June 20, 2016. As of September 30, 2016, the New Certificate
was not yet effective.

"As part of the Reclassification, we announced that our board of
directors intends to issue two shares of the Class C capital stock
as a one-time stock dividend for each share of Class A and Class B
common stock outstanding. The record and payment dates for this
dividend will be determined by our board of directors in its
discretion and there can be no assurance as to the timing of such
dates. For accounting purposes, we expect this dividend will be
treated as a stock split in the form of a dividend."


FEDCHOICE FEDERAL: Appeals Ruling in "Horton" Suit to 3rd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fedchoice Federal Credit Union filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Sheila Horton v. Fedchoice Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 2-16-cv-00318, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, restitution and injunctive relief arising
from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract with customers for
implementing an overdraft fee program.

The Defendant is a Maryland based credit union with approximately
$350 million in assets that provides banking services to over
25,000 members through branches in Pennsylvania, Washington D.C.,
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.

The appellate case is captioned as Sheila Horton v. Fedchoice
Federal Credit Union, Case No. 16-3960, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee SHEILA HORTON, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
                  MDS@chimicles.com

Defendant-Appellant FEDCHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented
by:

          Ashley L. Beach, Esq.
          Samuel W. Cortes, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          747 Constitution Drive, Suite 100
          Exton, PA 19341
          Telephone: (610) 458-7500
          Facsimile: (610) 458-7337
          E-mail: abeach@foxrothschild.com
                  scortes@foxrothschild.com

               - and -

          John M. Bredehoft, Esq.
          KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
          150 West Main Street
          P.O. Box 3037
          Norfolk, VA 23514
          Telephone: (757) 624-3225
          Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
          E-mail: jmbredehoft@kaufcan.com


FERRARA CANDY: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Herrera, Gonzalo Ruiz, Jesus Licea Ibanez, and Concepcion
Gomez individually and on behalf of other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Ferrara Candy Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-10627 (N.D. Ill., November 15, 2016), alleges willful and
reckless companywide practices that have denied hundreds of
Ferrara employees their earned overtime and living wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Ferrara Candy Company is a non-union producer of popular candies
that operates facilities in Forest Park, Bellwood, and
Bolingbrook, Illinois with headquarters in Oakbrook Terrace,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Jewsevskyj Seeks Review of E.D. Pa. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Jewsevskyj filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Alexandra Jewsevskyj v. Financial Recovery
Services Inc., et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-03041, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Alexandra Jewsevskyj v.
Financial Recovery Services Inc., et al., Case No. Case No. 16-
4086, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDRA JEWSEVSKYJ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC., LVNV
FUNDING LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES and ALEGIS GROUP LLC are
represented by:

          Ronald M. Metcho, II, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2595
          Facsimile: (215) 575-0856
          E-mail: rmmetcho@mdwcg.com


FIRST SOLAR: Pension Schemes' Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Arizona
District Court has entered a stay of the the Pension Schemes
proceedings in district court until the the Pension Schemes appeal
is decided.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the
order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the
merits briefing schedule. Briefing on the Pension Schemes' motion
is now complete. The Arizona District Court has entered a stay of
the proceedings in district court until the appeal is decided.

"Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery,
and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess
whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any," the Company said.

First Solar is a global provider of comprehensive photovoltaic
("PV") solar energy solutions.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Sudden Acceleration Incidents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that
sixteen individuals are suing Ford Motor Company in a class action
lawsuit after they claim their Ford vehicles were prone to sudden
acceleration incidents that caused them damages and injuries.

Timothy Hill, Ricky Vasquez, Harold Schade, Debra Schade, Edward
Numrych, Frank Henry, Alberta Tinsley-Talabi, Audrey Ann larkin,
Thomas Hunt, Frantz Charles, Arlie Hamilton, Gary Surgeon,
Bridgette Surgeon, Patricia Mae Camp, Jessica Dealey and Nathan
Lewis owned Ford vehicles that experienced sudden, unintended
acceleration incidents that caused them injuries, according to a
complaint filed Oct. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia.

The vehicles would accelerate suddenly and dangerous out of the
drivers' control and lacked readily available appropriate
fail-safes to prevent this, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim they saw advertisements for and
representations about Ford vehicles on television, in magazines,
on billboards, in dealership brochures, window stickers and on the
Internet that they recall safety and reliability being frequent
themes across the advertisements.

Those advertisements about safety and reliability influenced their
decisions to purchase their Ford vehicles and had those
advertisements and any other materials not omitted that Ford
vehicles could accelerate suddenly and out of the driver's control
and lacked readily available appropriate fail-safes to prevent
this, they would not have purchased their Ford vehicles, according
to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim they experienced multiple sudden, unintended
acceleration incidents.

Ford breached its warranties, committed fraud, was unjustly
enriched at the plaintiffs expense and violated consumer
protection laws, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. They
are being represented by Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com --
and Nathan B. Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman
Thomas & Battle; Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren --
jtangren@gelaw.com -- Jeff A. Almeida and Kyle J. McGee --
kmcgee@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; Mark DiCello --
madicello@dicellolaw.com -- and Robert F. DiCello of the DiCello
Law Firm; Timothy C. Bailey and L. Lee Javis II of Bailey, Javins
& Carter; James R. Bartimus -- jb@bflawfirm.com -- Bradley D.
Honnold and Anne M. Tarvin -- atarvin@bflawfirm.com -- of
Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Goza; Stephen M. Gorny of the
Gorny law Firm; John T. Murray of Murray & Murray Co.; John
Scarola and C. Calvin Warriner III -- CCW@searcylaw.com -- of
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley; Joseph J. Siprut; Keith
G. Bremer, Alison K. Hurley and Benjamin L. Price of Bremer Whyte
Brown & O'Meara; E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- Richard L.
Merpi II -- rlm@miller.law -- and Martha J. Olijnyk of the Miller
Law Firm; Grant L. Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- Thomas C. Jones -
- tjones@dbjlaw.net -- and Timothy C. Gaarder of Davis Bethune &
Jones; Gregory M. Travalio -- gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- and Mark
H. Troutman --
mtroutman@isaacwiles.com -- of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor;
Stephen J. Fearon Jr -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com --. of Squitieri &
Fearon; Paul Bucci of Laffey Bucci Kent LLP; Michael Jaffe and
Malcolm T. Brown -- brown@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz; Edgar F. Heiskell III; and Donald H. Slavik of
Slavik Law Firm.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:16-cv-09851


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Refused to Dismiss Camaro Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, refused on November 17, to dismiss
a class action accusing General Motors of putting defective
airbags in 2010 and 2011 Camaros.

The case is, PHILIP BRYDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02421-WHO (N.D. Cal.).  Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons who purchased or leased 2010 and 2011 Chevrolet
Camaro vehicles in the United States.  GM is "responsible for the
design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, sale and lease of
the Class Vehicles."

Plaintiffs bring this class action suit against GM for a variety
of claims stemming from an alleged airbag defect. GM moves to
strike plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief, arguing that it
amounts to a recall and is preempted by the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act.  District Judge William H. Orrick held that although GM has
some support for its argument from courts outside of this circuit,
district courts in California have consistently rejected those
decisions and found no preemption. The decisions holding no
preemption are more persuasive; GM has not raised any arguments
that those decisions did not address. GM's motion to strike is
denied.

GM also moves to dismiss plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claims
for failure to: (i) show GM had knowledge of and a duty to
disclose the alleged defect; (ii) demonstrate reliance on a
particular advertisement; (iii) plead a plausible injury; and (iv)
meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.  Judge Orrick held
that plaintiffs have stated plausible fraudulent omissions claims.

GM also moves to dismiss the claims for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, but plaintiffs, according to Judge
Orrick, have sufficiently alleged that the Class Vehicles are
unfit for their ordinary purpose and that the third-party
beneficiary exception to the vertical privity requirement applies.
GM's motion to dismiss is denied.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/85FbLg

Plaintiffs Philip Bryde, Jennifer Waters, and Alvin Northington
are represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Richard
Oxford, Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP.


GENUINE TITLE: Court Certifies West Town Class in "Fangman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard D. Bennett, in a memorandum opinion, granted the
West Town Plaintiffs' sealed motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled EDWARD J. AND VICKI FANGMAN, et al. v. GENUINE
TITLE, LLC, et al., Case No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs Edward J. Fangman and Vicki Fangman and 46 other
Plaintiffs have brought the purported class action lawsuit against
the Defendants alleging violations of the anti-kickback provisions
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  The lawsuit
involves an alleged home mortgage kickback scheme in which Genuine
Title, by itself and through sham companies, allegedly provided
cash payments and marketing materials to mortgage lenders,
including Defendant West Town Bank & Trust, representatives of
which referred its clients to Genuine Title for settlement
services.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/ExOYhA from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Edward J. Fangman, Vickie Fangman, Damon M. Oliver,
Betty M. Howard, Clayton J. Anthony, Janice M. Manuel, Eric L.
Haynes, Joseph J. Quinn, Deloris F. Woods, Jameson Cooper,
Katherine Cooper, Geraldine R. Walters, Steven A. Messina, Rose A.
Lease, James Pipp, Dana Pipp, Lawrence Crupi, Concetta Crupi,
Charles Milburn, Frank Cherry, Sammie Cherry, Helen L.
Householder, Nathaniel Risch, Preston Johnson, Beatrice Johnson,
Gerald Jones, Ann Jones, John Mahoney, Tinna Mahoney, Patricia
Gibson, Bruce Eisenstein, Margaret Eisenstein, Frank A. Palombaro,
Jr., David Alvarado, Shelly Palombaro, Carol J. Shaw, Carmelita B.
Hackett, Lusetha Rolle, Patricia M. Marshall, Ruby B. Coggins,
John H. Reinheimer, Jamie B. Reinheimer, Gerald F. Coggins and
Melinda Alvarado are represented by:

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Ave., Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  szadrozny@sgs-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy Francis Maloney, Esq.
          Timothy L. Creed, Esq.
          Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Ln., Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (240) 553-1737
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  tcreed@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

Intervenor Plaintiffs Robert Voelker, Shelia K. Voelker, Alvin
Cole and Bertha Cole are represented by:

          Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Ave., Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: szadrozny@sgs-law.com

Defendants Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media
Group, LLC, and Dog Days Marketing, LLC, are represented by:

          Ari Karen, Esq.
          Gregory P. Currey, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          4800 Montgomery Lane, 8th Floor
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (240) 507-1740
          Facsimile: (240) 507-1735
          E-mail: akaren@offitkurman.com
                  Gcurrey@offitkurman.com

Defendants West Town Bank & Trust and Net Equity Financial are
represented by:

          Brian L. Moffet, Esq.
          Zachary Schultz, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 727-6464
          Facsimile: (410) 385-3700
          E-mail: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com
                  zschultz@milesstockbridge.com

Defendant West Town Bank & Trust is represented by:

          Dwight W. Stone, II, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 727-6464
          Facsimile: (410) 385-3700
          E-mail: dstone@milesstockbridge.com

Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union is represented by:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Jeffrey Paul Blackwood, Esq.
          Michael Yaakov Kieval, Esq.
          WEINER BRODSKY KIDER PC
          1300 19th Street NW 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036-1609
          Telephone: (202) 557-3503
          Facsimile: (202) 628-2011
          E-mail: souders@thewbkfirm.com
                  blackwood@thewbkfirm.com
                  kieval@thewbkfirm.com

Defendants PNC Mortgage and PNC Bank, N.A., are represented by:

          Daniel Joseph Tobin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1909 K Street, NW, 12th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-1157
          Telephone: (202) 661-2256
          Facsimile: (202) 661-2299
          E-mail: tobindj@ballardspahr.com

Defendant PNC Mortgage is represented by:

          Robert A. Scott, Esq.
          TREANOR POPE & HUGHES PA
          500 York Road
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 494-7777
          Facsimile: (410) 494-1658
          E-mail: rascott@tph-law.com

Defendants Metlife Home Loans, LLC, and Metlife Bank, N.A., are
represented by:

          Leslie Paul Machado, Esq.
          LECLAIR RYAN PC
          2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 647-5928
          Facsimile: (703) 647-5968
          E-mail: leslie.machado@leclairryan.com

Defendant Eagle National Bank is represented by:

          Dennis Edward Boyle, Esq.
          BOYLE & FROST
          1629 K St. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006-1631
          Telephone: (202) 640-1415
          E-mail: dennis.boyle@boylefrost.com

               - and -

          George J. Krueger, Esq.
          Ryan T. Becker, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          2000 Market St., 20th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222
          Telephone: (215) 299-2028
          Facsimile: (215) 299-2150
          E-mail: gkrueger@foxrothschild.com
                  rbecker@foxrothschild.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Joseph Quinn, Esq.
          TYDINGS AND ROSENBERG LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-9700
          Facsimile: (410) 727-5460
          E-mail: lquinn@tydingslaw.com

Defendant E Mortgage Management is represented by:

          Soyong Cho, Esq.
          Irene Claire Freidel, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1601 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1600
          Telephone: (202) 778-9000
          Facsimile: (202) 778-9100
          E-mail: soyong.cho@klgates.com
                  irene.freidel@klgates.com
                  jennifer.nagle@klgates.com

Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is represented by:

          Matthew P. Previn, Esq.
          BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3100
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 600-2310
          Facsimile: (212) 600-2405
          E-mail: mprevin@buckleysandler.com

Interested Parties Jay Zukerberg, Brent Erickson and Christopher
Casazza are represented by:

          Michael Edward Rowan, Esq.
          SHUMAKER WILLIAMS PC
          901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 610
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-5223
          E-mail: mrowan@shumakerwilliams.com

Interested Party William J. Peterson, III, is represented by:

          Richard Melvin Karceski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. KARCESKI
          305 Washington Avenue, Suite 301
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 494-7100
          Facsimile: (410) 296-3443
          E-mail: karceskilaw@mindspring.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over China Oceanwide Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that a
local Fortune 500 company's deal to be acquired and taken private
by a Chinese conglomerate has caught the ire of at least one
disgruntled investor.

The members of the board of directors of Henrico-based insurance
giant Genworth Financial were sued in Richmond federal court by
shareholder Harold Faverman, who is seeking class action status to
either block the company's pending $2.7 billion deal to be
acquired by China Oceanwide or win damages should the transaction
be completed.

Filed Nov. 2, Mr. Faverman's case states it was initiated on
behalf of all Genworth shareholders and alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty against company directors.  It argues that the deal
won't result in the best value for Genworth shareholders based on
the per-share offer and provisions preventing the company from
pursuing other suitors.

"The proposed transaction was the result of a flawed process and
is woefully inadequate in light of Genworth's true value and its
growth prospects," the lawsuit argues.

The defendants in the case include Genworth directors William
Bolinder, G. Kent Conrad, Melina Higgins, David Moffett, Thomas
Maloney, James Parke, James Riepe, and Genworth CEO Thomas
McInerney.

A Genworth spokesperson said on Nov. 9 the company doesn't comment
on litigation.

The suit argues that China Oceanwide's offer to pay $5.43 in cash
per share for Genworth common stock is only a 4.2 percent premium
on the $5.21 per share closing price the last trading day before
the deal was announced.

It argues that the company has been on a recent uptick, citing
Genworth's stock price had risen 22 percent since the beginning of
2016, when it bottomed out in February at $1.61.

It also claims the company's growth prospects can be seen in
"earnings surprises in each of its recent quarters," referring to
the company's performance exceeding analysts' expectations in the
first two quarters of 2016.

However the company did announce that it faces charges of up to
$625 million to add more reserves for its long-term care coffers.
That led to a loss of $380 million in the third quarter, the
company announced.

The case further alleges that "preclusive deal protection
measures," are preventing the company from freely shopping around
for better offers.  It cites provisions in the deal such as a non-
solicitation clause that prohibits Genworth from seeking other
suitors while the deal is still pending, and a $105 million
termination fee if Genworth decides to back out of the deal.

Many of those sorts of provisions are standard in large corporate
M&A deals.

The suit doesn't say how many public shareholders exist, but there
are 498 million shares outstanding.

Headquartered on West Broad Street, Genworth is known for its
mortgage, life and long-term care insurance operations.  It has
been hit hard in the last few years by miscalculations on the
costs of its long-term care reserves.

Upon announcing the China Oceanwide deal last month, the company
said it was the best alternative for shareholders in the face of
those challenges.  In addition to paying $5.43 per share, China
Oceanwide plans to kick in $1 billion in cash to help shore up
Genworth's life insurance business and handle debt that's due in
2018.

Other defendants in the Faverman case are Asia Pacific Global
Capital Co. and Asia Pacific Global Capital USA Corp., entities
used by China Oceanwide in the acquisition.  The suit claims the
Asia Pacific firms aided and abetted the Genworth's board of
directors in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Mr. Faverman is represented by law firm Finkelstein Thompson in
Washington, D.C. The lead attorney on the case did not respond to
an inquiry by press time.

Mr. Faverman's attorneys ask for a jury trial and for the court to
certify the case as a class action suit.  They seek to either
block the deal outright or put it on hold until its terms could be
amended.  It also seeks an unspecified amount of damages for
Genworth shareholders.

The nature of Mr. Faverman's lawsuit is similar to those that have
become commonplace in the wake of pending mergers and acquisitions
involving public companies.  And the suit comes on the heels of
efforts from securities law firms around the country that,
immediately following the announcement of the China Oceanwide
deal, put out the word they were "investigating" the proposed
acquisition and seeking Genworth shareholders to sign on as lead
plaintiffs.

The practice has become some common that many companies plan for
and include the related legal expenses in their budgets and deal
calculations.

When lawsuits do result, they often look to block the deals, force
changes in the terms or extract damages.  Such suits are often
settled, dropped altogether or can lead to changes in the language
of the proposed transactions.

The practice has affected several Richmond deals, both large and
small, in recent years.

And the name Harold Faverman is also no stranger to class action
lawsuits.

Men with that name have been the lead plaintiff in at least two
other shareholder class action lawsuits, court and SEC records
show. One case involved Puerto Rican financial firm Doral
Financial Corp. in 2005 and the second was a securities fraud case
alleged against energy data firm Seitel Inc. in 2002.

It could not be determined if those plaintiffs were the same
Harold Faverman involved in this latest Genworth case.


H&R BLOCK: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Perras" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB Technology, LLC,
filed an appeal from District Court orders dated July 27, 2016,
September 9, 2016, and September 29, 2016, entered in the lawsuit
styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-
BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - Kansas City.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et
al., Case No. 16-4106, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, H&R Block,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 1, 2016, that on April 29, 2016,
the Court granted its motion for summary judgment on all claims
and denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which remains pending.

The Case concerns a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients
in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  The Plaintiff originally sought
to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of
Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims
of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and
received, and unjust enrichment.

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

   -- Appendix is due on December 22, 2016;

   -- Appellants' brief is due on December 22, 2016;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellee Ronald Perras, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 W. C Street, Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

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

Defendants-Appellants H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and
HRB Technology, LLC, are represented by:

          Kathryn Lee, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          40 Corporate Woods
          9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-0000
          Telephone: (913) 345-8100
          Facsimile: (913) 345-0736
          E-mail: klee@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Glen David Nager, Esq.
          JONES & DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-5464
          Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
          E-mail: gdnager@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon, Esq.
          Derek T. Teeter, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          E-mail: jeff.simon@huschblackwell.com
                  derek.teeter@huschblackwell.com


HALYARD HEALTH: Suit by Bahamas Surgery Center in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case by Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC remain engaged in discovery.

The Company said, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and
have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery
Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health,
Inc., f/k/a Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly-
Clark Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.),
filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brings a
putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud
(affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in connection
with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns."

"On March 21, 2016, we moved to dismiss the non-California
plaintiffs, and on May 26, 2016, the court issued an order
dismissing them. On June 14, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to dismiss Prime Healthcare
Centinela, LLC and one of the other two remaining California
plaintiffs, leaving only the current named plaintiff, Bahamas
Surgery Center, LLC.

"On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved for class certification of a
California-only damages class and a California-only injunctive
relief class. Although the plaintiff did not also move for
certification of a nationwide class to determine liability,
damages, or injunctive relief, it did move for certification of a
nationwide "issue" class purporting to resolve certain issues
allegedly "common" to members of that class.

"On July 8, 2016, we moved for summary judgment. The parties also
remain engaged in discovery. We intend to continue our vigorous
defense of the matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a global business which seeks to advance
health and healthcare by preventing infection, eliminating pain
and speeding recovery.


HALYARD HEALTH: To Defend Against "Jackson" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the Jackson class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter
styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy,
Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative
class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our
Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information
about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and
thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during
the respective class periods. The alleged class period for
purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received
Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21,
2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard
Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016.

"We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Halyard Health, Inc. is a global business which seeks to advance
health and healthcare by preventing infection, eliminating pain
and speeding recovery.


HSBC FINANCE: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "McLean" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lurline McLean filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Lurline McLean v. HSBC Finance Corp., Case No.
2-15-cv-08974, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Lurline McLean v. HSBC Finance
Corp., Case No. 16-4033, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

In a docket entry on Nov. 7, the Clerk of the Appellate Court
advised the parties that the Appellate Case has been listed for
possible dismissal due to jurisdictional defect.  The Clerk
directed all parties to file written responses addressing this
issue, with a certificate of service attached, within 14 days from
the date of the order.

Plaintiff-Appellant LURLINE MCLEAN, on behalf of hereself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 520-3236
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2-C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 259-6990
          E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee HSBC FINANCE CORP. is represented by:

          Louis Smith, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          MetLife Building
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          Facsimile: (973) 301-8410
          E-mail: smithlo@gtlaw.com


HUMANA INSURANCE: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brodsky" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lawrence S. Brodsky filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Lawrence Brodsky v. Humana Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:10-cv-03233, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Brodsky v. Humana
Insurance Company, Case No. 16-8028, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner LAWRENCE S. BRODSKY, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: GHara@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Respondent HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business as
HUMANA SPECIALTY BENEFITS, is represented by:

          William A. Chittenden, III, Esq.
          David J. Novotny, Esq.
          CHITTENDEN, MURDAY & NOVOTNY LLC
          303 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 281-3600
          E-mail: wchittenden@cmn-law.com
                  dnovotny@cmn-law.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Impax Laboratories, Inc. securities from February
25, 2014 through November 3, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Impax
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Impax class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-981.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Impax was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that
would cause the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") and the Connecticut Attorney General to conduct
extensive investigations of possible collusion of generic drug
pricing; (2) the DOJ investigation and the underlying conduct was
likely to result in criminal charges against Impax, and possibly
its officers and directors, for collusion of generic drug pricing;
(3) Impax lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 9, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-981.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


INOGEN INC: Settlement Approval Anticipated in Late November
------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Ryan Casper and Shane Hoefer anticipate
final approval of the settlement in late November 2016.

On April 13, 2016, Ryan Casper and Shane Hoefer (Plaintiffs) filed
a lawsuit against the Company on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees in the Superior Court for Santa
Barbara County, California. The complaint alleges failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to allow and pay for meal periods, and
other alleged violations of California wage and hour law. The
Plaintiffs and class members are seeking compensatory damages in
the amount of all wages, interest, and penalties allegedly due, as
well as liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other relief.

The parties successfully mediated the claims and reached a
settlement in April 2016. While the Company disputes the claims,
it agreed to the settlement with no admission of liability to
avoid the risks and costs associated with litigating the claims.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued approximately
$980,000 for the settlement costs within accounts payable and
accrued expenses. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. The parties anticipate final approval
of the settlement in late November 2016, and distribution of the
settlement funds in December 2016.

Inogen, Inc. is a medical technology company that primarily
develops, manufactures and markets innovative portable oxygen
concentrators used to deliver supplemental long-term oxygen
therapy to patients suffering from chronic respiratory conditions.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Not Yet Been Appointed
--------------------------------------------------------
Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a lead
plaintiff has not yet been appointed in a consolidated class
action lawsuit.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et.al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased shares of the
Company's Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on February 18, 2015. The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the Company's revenues from
sales in the city and state of New York and the Company's
effective tax rate. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, an identical complaint to the Xiang complaint
(Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-05065) was
filed in the same court. On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated
the Xiang and Patel actions.

On August 23, 2016, two potential plaintiffs, Roofers Local No.
149 Pension Fund and Christopher Peoples, an individual, moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the litigation. A lead plaintiff
has not yet been appointed.

The Company believes that the claims against it and its officers
and directors are without merit, and the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously. In
light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated
actions and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: "Donato" Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Richard Di
Donato.

The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint
(captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case
2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the Arizona District Court,
against us and certain of our current and former officers. This
complaint was brought as a purported class action, on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January
25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
We intend to vigorously defend this claim."

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products.


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAQUEL JONES, Plaintiff, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP
RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, is a collective action complaint that
seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Intercontinental is an international hotel company with more than
5,000 hotels world-wide. Intercontinental manages and operates the
InterContinental New Orleans hotel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amanda Mix filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Amanda Mix v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No.
2:15-cv-01102-JJT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 12,
2016, District Judge John J. Tuchi granted the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment.

Amanda Mix applied for and accepted a contingent worker position
at JPMorgan.  During the hiring process, JPMorgan obtained
fingerprints from her in order to obtain a Federal Bureau of
Investigation background check on her.  As a result of the outcome
of the FBI's fingerprint background check, JPMorgan revoked Mix's
offer of employment.

On June 16, 2015, Ms. Mix filed a complaint bringing a putative
class action against JPMorgan under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and alleges that JPMorgan routinely obtains and uses information
in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective
contingent workers, and frequently relies on such information as a
basis for adverse employment actions, including the refusal to
hire.

The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Mix v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Case No. 16-16967, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 25, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellant Amanda Mix's opening brief is due on February 3,
      2017;

   -- Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s answering brief is due
      on March 6, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant AMANDA MIX, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
          Russell S. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 845-5969
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com
                  rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com

Defendant-Appellee JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          James B. Ball, Esq.
          POLI & BALL, PLC
          2999 N. 44th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 840-1400
          Facsimile: (602) 840-4411
          E-mail: ball@bsmplc.com

               - and -

          Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1360
          E-mail: alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ellis" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Diana Ellis, Ronald Lazar and James Schillinger filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Diana Ellis,
et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-03897-
YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as Diana Ellis, et al. v. J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 16-17005, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10,
2016, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has cleared
JPMorgan Chase and Citibank of claims they defrauded homeowners,
who couldn't pay their mortgages during the Great Recession,
bringing a contentious four-year battle (in two cases, including
the Ellis Case) to a close.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in two orders issued late on Oct. 5,
that the Plaintiffs in two cases had failed to assert claims of
fraud and unjust enrichment against Chase and Citibank over what
the homeowners said were unjustified fees to inspect their homes
after they went into foreclosure.

According to Citibank, loan servicers are required to periodically
inspect delinquent properties to ensure they're being maintained
and to protect their value.

The July 2012 suits brought by eight plaintiffs in Alabama,
California, Oregon, Maryland, New York and Tennessee claimed that
neither bank was authorized to charge the inspection fees, and
that the banks misled them into believing the fees were valid.

Both sets of plaintiffs also accused the banks of hiding the
charges on their mortgage statements under vague titles like
"miscellaneous fees" and "corporate advances."

Judge Gonzalez Rogers refused to certify state and nationwide
classes in the cases last year, leaving intact only the
plaintiffs' individual fraud and unjust enrichment claims, among
others. Those claims arose out of a combined $287.15 in inspection
fees charged to the Chase plaintiffs and $310.50 charged to the
Citi plaintiffs.

In granting both banks' motions for summary judgment on the fraud
claims, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that the plaintiffs'
assertions that Chase and Citibank misrepresented the fees were
lacking as a matter of law.

"This is an opinion of law not subject to a fraud claim," Judge
Gonzalez Rogers said in both rulings.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 30, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 30, 2016;

   -- Appellants Diana Ellis, Ronald Lazar and James
      Schillinger's opening brief is due on February 8, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Chase Home Finance, LLC, J.P.
      Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., is due
      on March 10, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants DIANA ELLIS, JAMES SCHILLINGER and RONALD
LAZAR, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mark Philip Pifko, Esq.
          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Karim Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com
                  dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
          David A. Parsiola, Esq.
          COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR LLC
          8397 Highway 23
          Belle Chasse, LA 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110
          E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com
                  dparsiola@cossichlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware
corporation; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a national association,
for itself and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, LLC;
and CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
are represented by:

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

               - and -

          David M. Jolley, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          E-mail: djolley@cov.com

               - and -

          Peter Obstler, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: peter.obstler@aporter.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Cecio Appeals Ruling in "Russell" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Bobbi Cecio filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Steven Russell, et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01143-RGK-SP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Russell, et al. v.
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56696, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is
brought against the Defendant for falsely advertising original
prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its apparel and
other merchandise, in its direct marketing to consumers via in-
store advertising displays, print advertising, and Internet.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. owns and operates a chain retail
clothing stores throughout the United States.

Another objector, Anne Card, has also filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the "Russell" Case.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 12, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Bobbi Cecio's opening brief is due on April 24,
      2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Donna Caffey, Does, Kohl's
      Department Stores, Inc. and Steven Russell is due on
      May 24, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and DONNA CAFFEY are represented
by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA LAW OFFICE
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          77305 California Drive
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Personal: 760-469-5986
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

Objector-Appellant BOBBI CECIO is represented by:

          David C. Hawkes, Esq.
          BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
          800 Silverado Street, Second Floor
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 775-7515
          Facsimile: (858) 551-2434
          E-mail: davidchawkes@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          James Speyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4141
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: alex_beroukhim@aporter.com
                  james.speyer@aporter.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Parties in Gainesville Suit Await Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
Gainesville class action lawsuit await a ruling from the court on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
allege that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant
have contaminated real properties of the putative class members,
have caused property damage (diminution in value) and have placed
residents and owners of the putative class properties at an
elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at
issue. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised of all
current property owners of single family residential properties
within a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles
from the former plant area (which area encompasses approximately
7,000 owners).

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. Koppers Holdings
Inc. was dismissed from the case by the district court for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Class factual discovery closed in May 2015
and expert witness discovery was completed in August 2015.
Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or
limit the testimony of the other side's experts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 30,
2015 and the response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30,
2015. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016
and the parties await a ruling from the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

The Company is an integrated global provider of treated wood
products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Virgin Islands Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court on
August 15, 2016, formally dismissed Koppers Performance Chemicals
("PC") from a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court of the Virgin Islands which alleged that
PC's wood preservative products and formulas are defective.

The Company is an integrated global provider of treated wood
products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds.


KRISPY KREME: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Doughnut Ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
Krispy Kreme is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in
Los Angeles federal court on Nov. 9 by a former customer who says
the doughnut chain is guilty of false advertising and fraud
because some of its supposed fruit-filled and maple-glazed
products are made with "nutritionally inferior ingredients."

The 32-page, class-action complaint was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Jason
Saidian, an Los Angeles County resident who claims he wouldn't
have bought certain snacks sold by Krispy Kreme if he had been
aware of their actual ingredients.

Krispy Kreme has conducted "false and misleading business
practices" because products like its "Glazed Raspberry Filled,"
"Glazed Blueberry Cake" and "Maple Iced Glazed" doughnut and
doughnut-holes aren't actually made with real fruit or maple, the
lawsuit alleges.

"Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other consumers, the Raspberry
Products do not contain actual raspberries, the Maple Products do
not contain actual maple syrup or maple sugar and the Blueberry
Products do not contain actual blueberries," the lawsuit reads.
Instead, Krispy Kreme uses sugar, corn syrup, gums and artificial
food coloring to "mimic the texture, shape and color" of these
"Premium Ingredients," as they're called in the complaint, in lieu
of naturally occurring products with proven health benefits,
according to the court filing.

Attorneys at the L.A. office of Faruqi & Faruqi are now seeking
class-action status for their claim as well as upwards of $5
million in damages from the North Carolina-based doughnut chain
because of the absence of these "Premium Ingredients."

"Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products, reasonably
relying on Defendant's deceptive representation about the
Products, and believing that each of the Products contained its
respective Premium Ingredient.  Had Plaintiff and other consumers
known that the Products did not contain their Premium Ingredients,
they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid
significantly less for the Products.  Therefore, Plaintiff and
consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant's
deceptive practices," the complaint continues.
"As a result of their misleading business practice, and the harm
caused to Plaintiff and other consumers, Defendant should be
required to pay for all damages caused to consumers, including
Plaintiff.  Furthermore, Defendant should be enjoined from
engaging in these deceptive practices."

Krispy Kreme does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation, a
spokeswoman told The Washington Times on Nov. 10.


LA QUINTA: Still Defends "Beisel" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the Beisel class action lawsuit.

On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March
Secondary Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on
September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain
current and former Company officers, and certain current and
former members of the Board of Directors, among others.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the
federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained
materially false and misleading information or omissions and that
the Company as well as certain current and former officers made
false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to
analysts during the Class Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit.

The Company is an owner, operator and franchisor of select-service
hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-midscale segments
under the La Quinta brand.


LABOR READY: Objectors Appeal Decision in "Allen" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Anthony Allen, Michael Alvarez and Margie Bedolla filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit relating to the
lawsuit titled Jeffrey Allen, et al. v. Labor Ready Southwest,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-04266-DDP-AGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The Case arose from labor-related disputes.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Allen, et al. v. Labor
Ready Southwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56621, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript ordered by 11/28/2016;

   -- Transcript due 02/27/2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Anthony Allen, Michael Alvarez
      and Margie Bedolla is due on April 6, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Jeffrey Lee Allen, Does and
      Labor Ready Southwest, Inc., is due on May 8, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY LEE ALLEN, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, the general public and as an "aggrieved
employee" under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act, is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          Joseph Cho, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LAW GROUP APLC
          500 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 223-7153
          E-mail: rbae@AequitasLegalGroup.com
                  jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Louis Max Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Blvd. PH
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Christopher John Canlas, Esq.
          CANLAS LAW GROUP, APLC
          615 W. Beverly Blvd.
          Montebello, CA 90640
          Telephone: (323) 888-4325
          Facsimile: (323) 888-4329
          E-mail: cjc@canlaslaw.com

               - and -

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

Objectors-Appellants MARGIE BEDOLLA, ANTHONY ALLEN and MICHAEL
ALVAREZ are represented by:

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com
                  melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee LABOR READY SOUTHWEST, INC., a Washington
corporation doing business in the State of California, is
represented by:

          David R. Ongaro, Esq.
          ONGARO PC
          50 California Street, Suite 3325
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3900
          Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
          E-mail: dongaro@ongaropc.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Don Debenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders of Ligand Pharmaceuticals filed a federal class
action on November 17, accusing the company of overstating its
assets and exaggerating its financial picture, causing its share
price to plummet 5% in just two days once the problems came out.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the shareholders say in the
lawsuit, which does not give an estimate of their losses.

The complaint also names Ligand's CEO John Higgins and CFO Matthew
Korenberg as "controlling persons." It was filed just four days
after the company formally notified the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it would be restating several financial reports it
had submitted over the previous year.

The class is represented by Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law
Firm in New York, and the lawsuit appears to be the first to reach
the courthouse since Ligand's notice to the SEC. Another New York
firm, Bragar Eagel & Squire, issued a statement on November 18,
saying that it, too, had sued.

More litigation seems likely. Since Ligand disclosed Nov. 9 that
it might restate its financials, another seven law firms issued
formal statements declaring they were investigating the company.

Neither Rosen nor a spokesman for Ligand responded to emails
seeking comment.

The San Diego-based company specializes in "developing or
acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover
and develop medicines," according to its website. The company
focuses on "drug discovery, early-stage drug development, product
reformulation" and then partnering with other companies that
handle late-stage development, regulatory management and
commercialization, the site says.

Its medicines include Promacta, an oral medicine to increase
platelets in blood, and Kyprolis, used to treat multiple myeloma.

The class' lawsuit largely paraphrases statements in Ligand's
formal SEC notice. They say that in previous SEC reports the
company had "overstated the value of certain deferred tax assets
by approximately $27.5 million or 13 percent," misclassified some
short-term debts as long-term debts and did not have effective
controls over its financial reporting, among others claims.

Therefore, "Defendants' statements about Ligand's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times," the class
says in the lawsuit.

The investors seek damages on violations of section 10(b) of the
federal Exchange Act and the SEC's Rule 10b-5 regarding false or
misleading statements that deceived investors.


LISNR INC: CEO Responds to Indianapolis Colts App Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that the
chief executive officer of Lisnr Inc. -- one of three parties
along with the Indianapolis Colts and Yinzcam named as defendants
in a class action lawsuit claiming that a mobile app can listen in
on the user's conversations without consent -- said the lawsuit
contains a lot of false information.

"This is just really a bad lawsuit," Lisnr CEO Rodney Williams
told the Pennsylvania Record.  "The allegations are false for a
lot of reasons."

Mr. Williams said the Colts app simply tries to help the user
enjoy the game.  In addition, he said Lisnr's service is not a
beacon, which allows audio to be recorded.  Instead, he said,
Lisnr is similar to Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.

"It's not an app that has your data," Mr. Williams said.  "The
only thing that's relevant is whether you're at the game and
watching the game."

Mr. Williams said the Colts started using the app in 2014, and
that the organization is not at fault.

In addition, Mr. Williams said defendant Yinzcam is not the app
developer, as was claimed in the lawsuit.

Mr. Williams said the lawyer group that is representing the
plaintiffs is not new to this sort of lawsuit and that the group
"made a reputation for this."

"It's unfortunate that the lawsuit is hurting the industry,"
Mr. Williams said.

In the lawsuit filed Oct. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs allege that the
app runs afoul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
because it allows personal phone conversations to be heard.

The suit claims the information gleaned from the private
conversations is then used without the customer's knowledge or
consent for advertising purposes.

Alan Rackemann is named as the lead plaintiff in the class action.
He alleges that the defendants knew the app could activate the
microphone on his smartphone, giving them the ability to listen in
on his conversations without his consent.

According to the complaint, the app, which allows Colts fans to
receive team-specific statistics and news and other relevant
information, uses Lisnr's software to pinpoint the customer's
exact location by activating the smartphone's microphone.  The
complaint alleges that the information is then sent to the Colts
so the team can send location-based advertisements, promotions and
other content.

The plaintiff alleges in the lawsuit that, once the microphone is
activated by the app, it records all audio with no way for users
to opt out of the recording.

Since beacon tracking is known to be "inherently invasive,"
industry standards dictate that consumers be given the ability to
opt in to beacon tracking, the lawsuit said.  That option is often
accomplished through the phone's protocol or through the
developer's mobile app itself.

Since Lisnr requires a microphone to continuously listen for its
audio signals, the plaintiff alleges "Lisnr involuntarily enlists
thousands of sports fans that have downloaded and installed apps
from their favorite teams."

"Unfortunately for consumers, defendants never inform them that
their smartphones are being turned into listening devices, nor do
they ever seek consent," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Rackemann is represented by David S. Senoff --
dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- and Anapol Weiss of Anapol Weiss in
Philadelphia.


LOWER EAST: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalino Reyes Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWER EAST SIDE COFFEE SHOP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08861 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2016),
seeks the recovery of alleged unpaid wages and related damages for
unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Lower East Side Coffee Shop is a coffee shop in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     11 Broadway Suite 960
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Fax: 212-344-0301


LPL FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative
class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers in federal district court
alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the
Company's share repurchases and financial performance in late
2015. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the
lawsuit.

LPL Financial Holdings Inc. ("LPLFH"), a Delaware holding
corporation, together with its consolidated subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Company") provides an integrated platform of
brokerage and investment advisory services to independent
financial advisors and financial advisors at financial
institutions (collectively "advisors") in the United States of
America. Through its custody and clearing platform, using both
proprietary and third-party technology, the Company provides
access to diversified financial products and services enabling its
advisors to offer independent financial advice and brokerage
services to retail investors (their "clients").


MAJOR LEAGUE: Wyckoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Darwin Cox and Jordan Wyckoff filed an appeal from a
District Court judgment, dated November 3, 2016, in the lawsuit
titled Wyckoff v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-5186, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws.  For the reasons
stated in the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
September 29, 2016, Endorsed Joint Stipulation dated October 13,
2016 and the Court's Memo-Endorsed Order dated October 28, 2016,
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Sherman Act and Donnelly
Act claims was granted; Plaintiff Wyckoff's claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act were dismissed as to all Defendants other than
the Kansas City Royals; the parties stipulated pursuant to
41(a)(1) that Mr. Wyckoff's remaining claims -- the FLSA claims
against the Kansas City Royals -- were dismissed, and the
dismissal is with prejudice unless the Court's Dismissal Order is
reversed on appeal; in the event that the Court's Dismissal Order
is reversed on appeal, the parties agree that Mr. Wyckoff's
individual FLSA claims against Defendant Kansas City Royals
Baseball Corp. shall be deemed to have been tolled from July 2,
2015, the date of his originally filed Complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Wyckoff v. Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 16-3795, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Defendants-Appellees are Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball, an unincorporated association doing business as Major
League Baseball; Allan H. Selig; Robert D. Manfred, Jr.; Kansas
City Royals Baseball Corp; Miami Marlins, L.P.; San Francisco
Baseball Associates LLC; Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P.; Angels
Baseball LP; Chicago White Sox Ltd.; St. Louis Cardinals, LLC;
Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd.; The Baseball Club of
Seattle, LLLP; The Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP; Houston
Baseball Partners LLC; Athletics Investment Group, LLC; Rogers
Blue Jays Baseball Partnership; Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.,
L.P.; Padres L.P.; San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P.; Minnesota
Twins, LLC; Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC; Detroit
Tigers, Inc.; Los Angeles Dodgers LLC; Los Angeles Dodgers Holding
Company LLC; Sterling Mets L.P.; Atlanta National League Baseball
Club, Inc.; AZPB L.P.; Baltimore Orioles, Inc.; Baltimore Orioles
Limited Partnership; The Phillies; Pittsburgh Associates, L.P.;
Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd.; Rangers Baseball Express, LLC;
Rangers Baseball, LLC; Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC; Milwaukee
Brewers Baseball Club, Inc.; Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club,
L.P.; and New York Yankees P'Ship.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jordan Wyckoff, Individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, and Darwin Cox are represented
by:

          Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 North 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Judith Scolnick, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Patrick Fanning Madden, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: pmadden@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert C. Maysey, Esq.
          WARNER ANGLE HALLAM JACKSON & FORMANEK, PLC
          2555 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 264-7101
          Facsimile: (602) 234-0419
          E-mail: rmaysey@warnerangle.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          John Watkins Keker, Esq.
          Elliot Remsen Peters, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: jkeker@kvn.com
                  epeters@kvn.com

               - and -

          Adam Michael Lupion, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3358
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: alupion@proskauer.com


MANTECA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a man alleges a California city used in illegal
compensation method to pay its employees and has filed a class
action.

Chris Mraz filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals on Nov. 2 in the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against
the city of Manteca alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Mraz and class members were
employed by the defendant on various times, but have all suffered
injuries, including underpayment for overtime hours worked.  The
plaintiff holds the city of Manteca responsible because the
defendant allegedly implemented an illegal compensation method
that undercounted plaintiff's regular rate of pay and failed to
compensate plaintiff for cashing out compensatory time off and/or
medical contributions.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against defendants, unpaid overtime
compensation and interest, attorneys' fees, costs of action,
injunctive relief and further relief as the court deems just.  He
is represented by David E. Mastagni -- davidm@mastagni.com --
Isaac S. Stevens and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt in
Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-02614


MASTEC INC: "Wrigley" Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc.

In May 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
George L. Pita, as defendants. In August 2015, co-lead plaintiffs
were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed in October
2015. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained in,
or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting
matters that are the subject of the Audit Committee's independent
internal investigation. The amended complaint seeks damages
stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result
of purchasing Company securities at an allegedly inflated market
price.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In
September 2016, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted
without prejudice, which gives the Plaintiffs the opportunity to
file a second amended complaint.

The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.

MasTec, Inc. is an infrastructure construction company operating
mainly throughout North America across a range of industries.


MED SECURITY: "Garrett" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER GARRETT on behalf of herself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. MED SECURITY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03376 (S.D. Tex., November 15, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed "Plaintiff Class" are current and former employees of
Defendant who work, or have worked, for Defendant as "Commissioned
Officers" and whose job duties included patrolling on foot or
cart, monitoring vehicles, and providing security for persons and
properties contracted by defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


MILWAUKEE COUNTY: Lowered Retirement Benefits, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in federal
court that Milwaukee County lowers employees' retirement benefits
by reducing their years-of-service credit without their knowledge
or consent.


MISSISSIPPI, USA: Fletcher Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor-Plaintiff Cynthia Fletcher filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit styled USA v. State of Mississippi,
Case No. 3:70-CV-4706, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, Jackson.

The appellate case is captioned as USA v. State of Mississippi,
Case No. 16-60722, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.

The lawsuit arose from alleged civil rights violations.

Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant CYNTHIA FLETCHER, A minor, by Rev.
Artis Fletcher, as next friend, and Gloria Jean Barnes and David
Barnes, minors, by Rev. Theotis Smith, as next friend, suing in
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Suzanne Griggins Keys, Esq.
          PRECIOUS MARTIN, SR. & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 373
          Jackson, MS 39201-0000
          Telephone: (601) 944-1447
          Facsimile: (601) 944-1448
          E-mail: skeys@ptmandassoc.com

Intervenor Defendant-Appellee SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT is
represented by:

          Holmes S. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE, L.L.P.
          1018 Highland Colony Parkway
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 292-0723
          Facsimile: (601) 355-9708
          E-mail: holmes.adams@arlaw.com


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Quinton Appeals Ruling to 6th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cage Quinton, on behalf of those similarly situated, filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cage Quinton v.
Stephanie Stuard, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02611, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 12,
2016, the putative class action lawsuit has been filed against
Stephanie Rojannah Stuard, Complainant; John Wesley Carney, Jr.,
District Attorney; Arthur M. Bieber, Asst. District Attorney;
Phillip Ward, Sgt. Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.; Billy Smith,
Former Sheriff; Brian Prentice, Sgt. Clarksville Police Dept.;
Robert Ott, Sgt. THP; Estate of James E. Walton, Judge.

The nature of suit is stated as "Prisoner: Civil Rights."

The appellate case is captioned as Cage Quinton v. Stephanie
Stuard, et al., Case No. 16-6631, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


MYLAN: Investigations Into EpiPen Pricing Piling Up
---------------------------------------------------
Lydia Ramsey, writing for Business Insider, reports that the
lawyers at Mylan, the drugmaker at the center of outrage over the
rising price of the EpiPen, must be busy these days.

The company filed its quarterly report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, and updated investors about ongoing
legal matters.

The list is growing.  The company recently said it is going to pay
$465 million to the Department of Justice and other government
agencies over the way it classified the EpiPen in the Medicaid
Drug Rebate Program.

But that's not the only legal matter Mylan's facing.  The
company's also under investigation generic price collusion,
unrelated to the EpiPen.  For the sake of keeping everything
straight, here are all the subpoenas Mylan's disclosed, in its 10-
Q.

What was disclosed in the third-quarter 10-Q for the first time

  -- Business Insider learned that the DOJ subpoenaed Mylan back
in November 2014 over the classification of the EpiPen in the case
that just got settled.  Mylan has also received a document request
from the SEC about this classification issue and Mylan's
communications with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

   -- Class action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders were filed
in October 2016, alleging that Mylan "made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact" regarding
the classification of the EpiPen under Medicaid.  Mylan said the
lawsuits are without merit.

   -- Consumer class action lawsuits were also filed in August
2016 over the pricing and marketing of the EpiPen.

  -- Mylan's also facing a shareholder lawsuit out of Israel as of
October 13 2016, also regarding EpiPen's classification under
Medicaid. Mylan said this suit was also without merit.

  -- State attorneys general have subpoenaed Mylan for pricing and
marketing information regarding EpiPen.

  -- Employees and one member of Mylan's senior management on
September 8, 2016 received subpoenas from the Department of
Justice relating to the marketing pricing and sale of some of
Mylan's generic products, as well as Mylan's communications with
its competitors.  This is related to the reports that the DOJ is
looking into generic drug price fixing.

  -- In September 2016, a class action case was filed in
Pennsylvania regarding alleged price-fixing the cholesterol
medication Pravastatin.  Mylan noted that it intends to "deny
liability."

Investigations that were in the second-quarter 10-Q as well

  -- SEC investigation that started September 10, 2015 regarding
"certain related party matters."

-- Mylan also received subpoenas in December 2015 from the
Antitrust Division of the DOJ and the attorney general of
Connecticut regarding the price and marketing of Doxycycline, an
antibiotic.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Players Urge Supreme Court to Review Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the last time
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to an approved class
action settlement, AOL ruled the Internet, Bill Clinton was
president and Donald Trump was months away from considering a run
for the presidency in an October 1999 interview with Larry King.
It was a long time ago, in other words.

The National Football League and plaintiffs' lawyers representing
a class of more than 20,000 retired players said in Supreme Court
briefs filed on Nov. 4 that there is no need for the justices to
revisit the rules for protecting the interests of future class
members.  Those rules were set out in a pair of asbestos cases,
1997's Amchem v. Windsor and 1999's Ortiz v. Fibreboard, which,
broadly speaking, established that class settlements can only be
approved if plaintiffs with different sorts of injuries -- and,
thus, potential conflicts of interest -- are adequately
represented. Since those decisions, only a handful of mass torts
have been resolved through class action settlements, rather than
global settlements that resolve claims individually through an
injury matrix.

The NFL's $1 billion settlement of retired players' traumatic
brain injury claims, as Reuters' Frankel reported, seemed to
reopen the door to personal injury class action settlements.  The
plaintiffs' steering committee, co-led by Seeger Weiss and Anapol
Weiss, recognized during mediation with the NFL's lawyers at
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison that retired players who had
already developed neurological disorders had different interests
than those who might develop them in the future.  The steering
committee appointed counsel for these two subclasses -- but the
appointed lawyers came from the steering committee's own ranks.

Ultimately, after rejecting an initial settlement proposal, the
trial judge overseeing the consolidated litigation, U.S. District
Judge Anita Brody, said the deal passed muster under Amchem and
Ortiz because each subclass was fairly represented.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Brody's
approval last March, agreeing that the two subclasses were fairly
represented by the independent counsel appointed to protect their
interests. "Simply put," wrote Judge Thomas Ambro for a panel that
also included Judge Thomas Hardiman and Richard Nygaard, "this
case is not Amchem."

Two groups of objectors (comprising 33 players in all) filed
petitions for Supreme Court review.  Frankel is focusing only on
one of those petitions, Armstrong v. National Football League,
because it asserts a broad argument that since Amchem and Ortiz,
the 2nd and 3rd Circuits have split on what constitutes adequate
representation of subclasses.  According to Deepak Gupta of Gupta
Wessler, Supreme Court counsel for the Armstrong objectors, the
2nd Circuit would not have approved the NFL concussion settlement
because players who may develop certain brain diseases in the
future were not adequately represented.

The steering committee member who represented their subclass, the
objectors said, was conflicted because he also represented
individual class members with current injuries.  The petition
called the 3rd Circuit's approval of the settlement "a blueprint
for circumventing Amchem and Ortiz."

The 2nd Circuit, Mr. Gupta said in the objectors' petition, held
in the In re Literary Works case and again just last summer in the
Visa and MasterCard interchange fee litigation that when different
groups of plaintiffs have conflicting interests, those subclasses
must have their own counsel.  The 2nd Circuit is so clear on this
point, the petition said, that if a retired football player sued
in that circuit in a collateral attack on the class action
settlement, the settlement might well be dissolved.

"The 3rd Circuit has drifted away from Amchem," Mr. Gupta said.
"The split (with the 2nd Circuit) could unravel this litigation
years after the fact."

That's preposterous, according to the NFL and lawyers for the
class.  The NFL's brief opposing Supreme Court review emphasized
the overall fairness of the settlement, which generated only about
200 objectors and about 200 opt-outs.  The league's Supreme Court
counsel of record, Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis, said the
justices' holdings in Amchem and Ortiz did not create a bright-
line rule for class action settlements that resolve different
sorts of claims.  "Instead, the question is whether the settlement
and the process that produced it eliminated the concerns
identified in Amchem and Ortiz," the NFL brief said. (It's worth
pointing out that Clement represented class counsel in the credit
card interchange fee class action in their failed defense of the
settlement at the 2nd Circuit.)

Plaintiffs' Supreme Court brief in the NFL case, from counsel of
record Samuel Issacharoff of New York University, went into more
detail about why there really is no split between the 2nd and 3rd
Circuits.  According to plaintiffs' lawyers, the 2nd Circuit cases
objectors cite are easily distinguishable from the NFL concussion
case because subclasses didn't have their own counsel in either
the credit card or literary works settlements.  That's a stark
contrast, the brief said, from the NFL settlement, in which
current and future claimants had their own lawyers -- and in which
hundreds of plaintiffs' lawyers representing individual NFL
players provided additional structural protection when they
reviewed the deal with their clients in mind.

"Neither 2nd Circuit case demonstrates a circuit conflict or
raises any concern that the settlement here would have been struck
down had it been before that circuit," the class brief said.
"Neither looks remotely like this case, which involves what may be
the most cohesive, self-aware class ever found in litigation: over
20,000 retired NFL players, all of whom are fully aware of the
fact of having played in the NFL, more than 5,000 represented by
hundreds of independent lawyers, and all flyspecking one of the
most publicized civil settlements in history."

Frankel doubts the Supreme Court will take the case, but
Mr. Gupta's petition nevertheless raises an important point.  If
the NFL case does turn out to be a roadmap for class action
settlements of personal injury claims, settlement negotiators
should anticipate the need for independent counsel for subclasses.
The sooner they protect against conflicts of interest, the lower
the odds objectors will be able to delay the process.


NESTLE: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Beneful Dog Food
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge on November 17, in San Francisco, struck down a
class action claiming Nestle Purina's Beneful dog food killed or
sickened thousands of pooches.

Citing lack of evidence to prove the dog food, and not some other
factors, caused the pets to get sick, U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen granted summary judgment to Nestle Purina Pet Care Company.

"[The] ruling confirms what millions of pet owners already know
-- that Beneful is a safe, healthy, and nutritious dog food that
millions of dogs enjoy every day," Nestle Purina spokeswoman Wendy
Vlieks said in an email on November 17.

Lead plaintiff Frank Lucido sued the company in February 2015,
claiming it failed to adequately test its dog food or disclose the
presence of toxins in the chow.  An analysis of 28 samples
revealed three types of toxins: propylene glycol; mycotoxins, a
fungal mold on grain; and the heavy metals arsenic and lead.  But
the level of toxins found in the dog chow did not exceed limits
permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Plaintiffs' expert analyzed 28 of 1,400 dog food samples from
incidents of dogs that got ill after eating Beneful. The sampling
was limited because not all dog owners had kept the chow.

The expert, animal toxicologist Dr. John Tegzes, claimed the FDA
based its dog chow toxin limits only on short-term exposure and
did not consider the effects of long-term exposure.  He said
studies used to establish FDA tolerance limits were "poorly
designed" and tended to look only at the effects on dogs over
weeks, rather than years.

While Tegzes could not say definitively that the toxins caused the
dogs to get sick, he concluded that chronic exposure to
mycotoxins, heavy metals and glycols posed a "significant health
risk" to dogs and could adversely affect their health.

Chen rejected that conclusion, finding that Tegzes lacked two key
pieces of data to support his finding: the exact level of
mycotoxins in the dog food and what specific level of mycotoxins
actually poses a safety risk.  Chen also said the expert failed to
examine the afflicted dogs' veterinary records and consider other
factors that may have caused them to get sick.  Additionally, Chen
found scientific literature cited to support those conclusions
insufficient, and that Tegzes himself acknowledged "research is
lacking about how these combinations of contaminants affect the
health of dogs over the lifespan."

"Dr. Tegzes's opinion is not reliable because the scientific
literature he invokes is either too speculative or too imprecise,"
Chen wrote in his 24-page ruling. "Simply put, Dr. Tegzes cites no
epidemiological evidence that long-term exposure to mycotoxins at
levels below the limits set by the FDA leads to serious health
risks for dogs."

The judge also rejected Tegzes' testimony that Nestle Purina
failed to adequately test its dog food, finding Tegzes had no
specialized knowledge of pet food manufacturing, testing or
control procedures to offer such an opinion.

Chen refused to let Tegzes and another expert, veterinarian Dr.
Jena Questen, opine about the importance of dog food safety and
testing for consumers, finding that neither witness was qualified
to testify on "consumer preferences."

Chen said the plaintiffs' case ultimately relied on Tegzes'
opinions, and that "because the court finds Dr. Tegzes' opinions
unreliable, plaintiffs' case has no evidentiary support."  He
granted Nestle Purina's motion to exclude the expert testimony and
its motion for summary judgment, and closed the case.

Chen denied the plaintiffs' request to submit additional evidence
and entered final judgment in favor of Nestle Purina Pet Care.

Vlieks said in the email that her company ranks the health and
well-being of pets as its number-one commitment and that its
quality control and safety protocols are "the gold standard" for
the pet food industry.

"Beneful is made in Purina-owned facilities across the U.S. and
ingredients always meet or exceed every federal and state
requirement," Vlieks said. "In a typical 24-hour production,
Purina conducts 30,000 quality checks involving
ingredient/packaging, receiving, processing and packing. We take
these steps to ensure that our consumers and their pets have safe,
quality products."

Nestle Purina Pet Care reported $11.5 billion in sales and $2.4
billion in profit for its global parent company in 2015, making up
7.7 percent of Nestle's $88.8 billion in revenue last year,
according to the firm's 2015 annual report.

Class attorney Jeffery Cereghino of Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski in San Francisco did not immediately return a phone
call seeking comment on November 17.

The case is, FRANK LUCIDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE PURINA
PETCARE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00569-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://is.gd/5T3tI9

Frank Lucido, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram, Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Susan S. Brown, Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Adam D. Lynn, The Richman Law Group,
pro hac vice, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office LLP, pro hac vice,
James Dennis Young, Morgan and Morgan, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust
Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice, Roger L. Mandel,
Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell, Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Jennifer Hickey, Plaintiff, represented by David Pastor, Pastor
Law Office LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram, Olson,
Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall
Law Group PLLC, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac
vice, Susan S. Brown, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Beth
E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Michael Francis Ram,
Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Christina Winters, Plaintiff, represented by Adam D. Lynn, The
Richman Law Group, pro hac vice, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac
vice, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Michael
Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

David Balmer, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M. Mansfield, Whatley
Kallas, LLP, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office LLP, pro hac vice,
Jay Wayne Swearingen, The Animal Law Center, LLC, Jeffrey B.
Cereghino, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Jennifer Reba
Edwards, The Animal Law Center, LLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Rust
Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac
vice, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Michael
Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Virginia Burgardt, Plaintiff, represented by Adam D. Lynn, The
Richman Law Group, pro hac vice, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac
vice, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Michael
Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Elizabeth Rodarte, Plaintiff, represented by Adam D. Lynn, The
Richman Law Group, pro hac vice, David Pastor, Pastor Law Office
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, pro hac vice, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP, pro hac
vice, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC & Michael
Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Nestle Purina Pet Care Company, Defendant, represented by Dale
Joseph Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Andrea M. Weiss --
aweiss@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP, Carmine R. Zarlenga,
III, Attorney at Law & Keri Elizabeth Borders --
kborders@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that New
Residential continues to defend against the securities class
action in Florida.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015;
(ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No.
15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm
Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.,
et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On
April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "Securities Action."

On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison
counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9,
2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On
January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its
relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal
controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's
disclosures were materially false and misleading, including
statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's
contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and
internal controls; and (iv) certain related party transactions.

The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege
that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and
2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and
misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead
plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled
investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information
regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business
practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange
Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs,
expenses, and fees.

On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Securities Action in its entirety.

On June 6, 2016, all allegations except those regarding certain
related party transactions were dismissed. New Residential intends
to vigorously defend the Securities Action.

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011 for
the purpose of making real estate related investments and
commenced operations on December 8, 2011.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Decision on Motion for Reargument
---------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties are awaiting decision on the motion for reargument in the
case by Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund.

On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class action and
derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester County
Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment Corp., et
al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint.

The Company said, "The lawsuit names the Company, our directors,
our Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as
defendants, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress
Operating Entity I LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition. The
lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, as to
the applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company's Certificate
of Incorporation and as to the validity of the release of claims
of the Company's stockholders related to the termination of the
HLSS Initial Merger Agreement. The Amended Complaint seeks
declaratory relief, equitable relief and damages."

"On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing without
prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and declaratory
judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the
applicability of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016, plaintiff
moved to reargue the Court's dismissal opinion, and defendants
filed an opposition to the motion for reargument on October 28,
2016. The parties are awaiting decision on the motion for
reargument."

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011 for
the purpose of making real estate related investments and
commenced operations on December 8, 2011.


OVASCIENCE INC: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is in
the process of filing a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the "Superior Court") against us,
several of our officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of
our common stock. The plaintiffs purport to represent those
persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or
traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement
and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations
of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act and seek, among
other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-
and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements."

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "District Court"). On December 30, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior
Court.

"Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19,
2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to remand the action to the Superior Court.

"On February 26, 2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, alleging substantially the same claims against the
same parties as the action filed on October 9, 2015.

"On April 4, 2016, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint
motion to consolidate the two cases and appoint co-lead
plaintiffs, and ordered the co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint within sixty days.

"On June 17, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint asserting similar allegations and alleging
violations of the same sections of the Securities Act of 1933 as
the original complaint.

"On October 27, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
intervene to add an additional name plaintiff.

"We are in the process of filing a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. We believe that the amended consolidated
complaint is without merit and intend to defend against the
litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be
successful.

"A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other
defendants could have a material effect on our consolidated
financial position and results of operations in the period in
which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable to
estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., is a global fertility company developing
proprietary potential treatments for female infertility based on
scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or
EggPCSM, cells.


PARTNERS REAL ESTATE: Feb. 10 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
THIS NOTICE IS IMPORTANT TO YOU.

IT IS PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

This notice is directed to all persons and entities, wherever they
may reside or be domiciled, who held units of Partners Real Estate
Investment Trust ("Partners REIT" or the "REIT") as of the close
of trading on April 1, 2014, other than Excluded Persons (the
"Class" or "Class Members").  Excluded Persons are the defendants,
described below, and any entities owned or controlled by the
defendants; past or present subsidiaries or affiliates of Partners
REIT and Holyrood Holdings Limited ("Holyrood"); and past or
present officers, directors, senior employees, partners, legal
representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns of
the defendants and their immediate family members.

THE CERTIFICATION ORDERS

On November 8, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the
"Court") certified the action Locking v. McCowan et al., Court
File No. CV-14-517117-00CP (the "Class Action") as a class
proceeding and appointed Daniel Locking as representative
plaintiff (the "Representative Plaintiff").

The defendants in the Class Action are Ronald McCowan ("McCowan"),
Allen W. Weinberg ("Weinberg"), Joseph Feldman, Marc Charlebois,
Laura Philp ("Philp") and Holyrood (collectively, the
"Defendants").

The Class Action relates to the circumstances surrounding Partner
REIT's decision to enter a transaction, announced on April 2, 2014
(the "Transaction"), for the purchase of certain Ontario
properties from Holyrood.

On behalf of Class Members, the plaintiff alleges that the
Transaction was contrary to applicable laws, including the REIT's
Declaration of Trust and applicable rules of the Toronto Stock
Exchange, because the vendor Holyrood was not dealing at arm's
length with McCowan, then CEO of the REIT.  It is further alleged
that McCowan, Philp, Weinberg, and Holyrood conspired to enable
McCowan to gain control of Partners REIT without seeking the
required approval from unitholders.  The action seeks to recover
damages allegedly sustained to the Class Members' units of the
REIT as a result of the Transaction.

The certification order means that the Class Action may proceed to
trial as a class action.  Certification is a preliminary
procedural matter.  The merits of the claims in the Class Action,
and the allegations of fact on which the claims are based, have
not been finally determined by the Court.  The Defendants deny
that the claims in the action have merit.

DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who want to participate in the Class Action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS
ACTION

Class Members who do not want to participate in the Class Action
must opt out.   If you want to opt out of the Class Action, you
must complete a signed letter stating that you elect to opt out of
the Partners REIT Class Action and the letter must provide all of
the following information:

  (i)  The number of units of Partners REIT you held as of the
close of trading on April 1, 2014; AND

(ii)  Your name, address, telephone number, and signature.  If
you are submitting an opt-out request on behalf of a corporation
or other entity, you must state your position and authority to
bind the corporation or entity.

Your opt-out request must be sent by email, fax or mail to:

       Investigation Counsel P.C.
       Re:  Partners REIT Class Action
       350 Bay Street, Suite 300
       Toronto ON   M5H 2S6
       Email:  partnersreitclassaction@investigationcounsel.com
       Fax:  416-637-3445

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must be
postmarked or received no later than February 10, 2017 and it must
contain all of the required information.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the Class Action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favourable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action against any of the Defendants for any of the
factual matters raised in the Class Action.  If the Class Action
is successful, you may be entitled to share in the amount of any
award or settlement recovered.  A Class Member who opts out will
not be entitled to participate in the Class Action and will not be
entitled to share in the amount of any award or settlement.

A minor or a mentally incapable Class Member cannot be opted out
of the Class without permission of the Court. The Children's
Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as applicable, must
receive notice of such an opt-out request.

NO DIRECT COST TO YOU

The Representative Plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee
retainer agreement with law firm Investigation Counsel P.C. which
provides that counsel will be paid if the Class Action is
successful or costs are recovered from the Defendants.  If the
action is successful, either through judgment on the common issues
or by way of an approved settlement, the legal fees will be set by
the Court, and the Court may order that these fees be paid out of
the settlement proceeds or by the Defendants.

If the class action is not successful, you will NOT be responsible
for any legal costs of the Class Action and will NOT have any
other financial obligations because of the Class Action.

NOTICE TO BROKERS

Please deliver this notice by email no later than December 12,
2016 to your clients who held units of Partners REIT as of the
close of trading on April 1, 2014, for whom you have valid email
addresses.  If you have affected clients for whom you do not have
valid email addresses, please contact Investigation Counsel P.C.
to obtain hard copies of this notice for the purpose of mailing
the notice to those clients or provide Investigation Counsel P.C.
with the mailing addresses of those clients and Investigation
Counsel P.C. will mail the notices directly to those clients.

Brokerage firms may collectively request up to $5,000 in total for
the expenses relating to the distribution of this notice to Class
Members.  If the amounts submitted in aggregate exceed $5,000,
each brokerage firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro rata basis.
Brokerage firms must submit an invoice to Investigation Counsel
P.C. by January 13, 2017 to be eligible for reimbursement.


PENSION BENEFIT: Collins Appeals D. Columbia Ruling to D.C. Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary F. Caples, Mary E. Collins and Anna M. Vendola
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Mary
Collins, et al. v. PBGC, et al., Case No. 1:88-cv-03406-JEB, in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10,
2016, Judge James E. Boasberg issued a contemporaneous order
denying the class counsel's motion seeking further fees in the
cases captioned ESTELLA PAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENSION
BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant, and MARY COLLINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant,
Civil Action Nos. 89-2997 (JEB), 88-3406 (JEB) (D.C.).

A full-text copy of Judge Boasberg's October 3, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/jgslXl from Leagle.com.

In 1986 and 1988, two class-action lawsuits were filed against the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) over the termination
of federally insured pension plans.  After extended negotiations,
the class counsel and the PBGC entered into a Settlement Agreement
in these suits in 1996.  The settlement-implementation phase
finally came to an end in 2002 with the settlement fund having
paid out over $922 million in benefits to class members.  When
these benefit payments were made, the class counsel, in turn,
received 8% of them as attorney fees, or around $75 million.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Collins, et al. v. PBGC,
et al., Case No. 16-5310, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant docketing statement is due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant certificate as to parties is due on November 30,
      2016;

   -- Appellant statement of issues is due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant underlying decision is due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant deferred appendix statement is due on Nov. 30,
      2016;

   -- Appellant notice of appearance is due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant transcript status report is due on November 30,
      2016;

   -- Appellant procedural motions are due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant dispositive motions are due on December 15, 2016,

   -- Appellee certificate as to parties is due on November 30,
      2016;

   -- Appellee entry of appearance is due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellee procedural motions are due on November 30, 2016;

   -- Appellee dispositive motions are due on December 15, 2016;

   -- Clerk's Order filed consolidating cases 16-5318
      (Consolidation started November 1, 2016) with 16-5310;
      directing party to file in 16-5318 initial submissions:
      APPELLANT docketing statement is due on December 1, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant statement of issues is due on December 1, 2016
      [16-5310, 16-5318].

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary E. Collins, Mary F. Caples, and Anna M.
Vendola, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Stephen Robert Bruce, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
          1667 K Street, NW, Suite 1230
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 371-8013
          E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net

Defendant-Appellee Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is
represented by:

          Charles Glaston Cole, Esq.
          Molly Bruder Fox, Esq.
          Gwendolyn Prothro Renigar, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-1795
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          E-mail: ccole@steptoe.com
                  mbfox@steptoe.com
                  grenigar@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Joseph James Shelton, Esq.
          ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
          PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
          1200 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-4026
          Telephone: (202) 326-4020
          E-mail: shelton.joseph@pbgc.gov

Defendant-Appellee M & M Transportation Company Pension Plan is
represented by:

          Joseph James Shelton, Esq.
          ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
          PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
          1200 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-4026
          Telephone: (202) 326-4020
          E-mail: shelton.joseph@pbgc.gov


PHYSICIAN'S FORMULA: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Physician's
Formula Cosmetics, Inc. and Physicians Formula, Inc., cosmetics
manufacturers, citing alleged false, deceptive and misleading
representations.

Qiu-Yun Zhang filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Nov. 2, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the defendants alleging that they
violated the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in Aug.
27, she purchased defendants' Organic wear(R) 100% Natural Origin
CC Color + Correction Cream SPF 20 and Organic wear(R) 100%
Natural Lash Boosting Mascara.

The plaintiff holds Physician's Formula Cosmetics, Inc. and
Physicians Formula, Inc. responsible because the defendants
allegedly represented that their products are 100 percent natural,
made without harsh chemicals.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a class action, designating plaintiff and
her counsel as representatives, an award for statutory damages,
attorney fees and costs.  She is represented by Mark Schlachet of
Law Offices of Mark Schlachet in Cleveland.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-07705


PLATINUM LIMOUSINE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Pelayo" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Platinum Limousine Services, Inc. and Kurt Tsuneyoshi
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Arsenio Pelayo, et al. v. Platinum Limousine Services, I, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00023-DKW-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii, Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleges that the Defendants: (1) failed to pay overtime and
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (2)
required employees to work split shifts; (3) failed to timely pay
wages when due; (4) converted pay owed the Plaintiff; (5) was
unjustly enriched; and (6) owes punitive damages.

The appellate case is captioned as Arsenio Pelayo, et al. v.
Platinum Limousine Services, I, et al., Case No. 16-16989, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Platinum Limousine Services,
      Inc. and Kurt Tsuneyoshi is due on February 6, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Brandon Boreliz, Francis
      Manankil and Arsenio Pelayo is due on March 6, 2017;

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

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on February 6, 2017, for
      Platinum Limousine Services, Inc. and Kurt Tsuneyoshi;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on March 6, 2017, for
      Brandon Boreliz, Francis Manankil and Arsenio Pelayo;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on April 6, 2017, for
      Platinum Limousine Services, Inc. and Kurt Tsuneyoshi; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees ARSENIO PELAYO, FRANCIS MANANKIL, and BRANDON
BORELIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Richard Loren Holcomb, Jr., Esq.
          HOLCOMB LAW, LLLC
          1136 Union Mall, Suite 808
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4040
          Facsimile: (808) 356-1954
          E-mail: rholcomblaw@live.com

Defendants-Appellants PLATINUM LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC., and KURT
TSUNEYOSHI are represented by:

          Sheri J. Tanaka, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHERI J. TANAKA
          4348 Waialae Avenue, #586
          Honolulu, HI 96816
          Telephone: (808) 276-4942
          Facsimile: (808) 748-3165
          E-mail: sheri.tanaka@gmail.com


PMLRA PIZZA: Files Another First Circuit Appeal in "Reeves" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants PMLRA Pizza, Inc., and Henry Askew filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10474-WGY, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-2303, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Defendants have filed appeals in the Federal Circuit and the First
Circuit.

Tyler Reeves brought suit against the Defendants for alleged
unremitted service charge from customers due the Plaintiff under
the Massachusetts "Tips Act" and "Minimum Wage Act."

The First Circuit stated that the Docketing Statement, Transcript
Report/Order form and Appearance form are due on November 14,
2016.  The First Circuit also notified the parties that the
December 1, 2016 amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure make significant changes to appellate practice.  The
full text of the amendments, as well as a summary of major rule
changes, is available at https://goo.gl/VBA4oF  The changes are
effective on December 1, 2016.

Plaintiff-Appellee TYLOR REEVES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 231-6777
          Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
          E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com

Defendants-Appellants PMLRA PIZZA, INC., and HENRY ASKEW are
represented by:

          Todd J. Bennett, Esq.
          Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
          BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C.
          24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
          Cambridge, MA 02141
          Telephone: (617) 577-8800
          Facsimile: (617) 577-8811
          E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com
                  tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com


PNC CAPITAL: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Martin" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Martin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Robert Martin v. PNC Capital Investment Advisors,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01828, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against PNC Capital on July 20, 2016, over alleged
violation of prisoner's civil rights.  The Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated at the Allen Oakwood Correctional Facility, in Lima,
Ohio.

PNC Capital is a privately owned investment manager.  The Firm
provides its services to high net worth individuals and investment
companies.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Martin v. PNC Capital
Investment Advisors, et al., Case No. 16-4283, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants-Appellees are PNC CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS,
MICHELLE L. VEGA, THOMPSON HINES, DAN CHURCHILL, JANE AND JOHN
DOES, CRITCHFIELD CRITCHFIELD & JOHNSON and ROGER D. PROPER, JR.


PRIME VALET: "Farasat" Claims Non-payment of Min. Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARASH FARASAT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRIME VALET LLC and JOHN JASON WEEKS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03182-G (N.D. Tex.,
November 15, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff was not paid minimum
wage in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Prime Valet specializes in providing valet services for
various businesses and individuals throughout the Dallas/Fort
Worth Metroplex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     Travis Gasper, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Web site: http://www.overtimelawyer.com


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class Action Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that ProNAi Therapeutics raised
$144 million in its IPO at $17 a share, then the price dropped to
$1.53 when its cancer drug failed, shareholders say in a class
action in San Mateo County Court.


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased shares of ProNAi
Therapeutics, Inc. ("ProNAi") between July 15, 2015 and June 6,
2016 (the "Class Period").  You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for
the Southern District of New York.  To get more information go to:

        http://www.zlk.com/pslra/pronai-therapeutics-inc

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

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, ProNAi
made materially false and misleading statements about the
potential and efficacy of its drug product candidate PNT2258 in
the company's public filings, which caused ProNAi's stock price to
be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, thus harming
investors.

On June 6, 2016, ProNAi revealed that the Phase 2 clinical trials
of PNT2258  failed to produce sufficient efficacy results to
justify continued clinical development of the drug and, thus,
ProNAi was suspending clinical development of PNT2258.  Following
this news, shares of ProNAi fell more than 67 percent.

If you suffered a loss in ProNAi you have until January 9, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Singh Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Manoj P. Singh, William A. Gerhart and Jeffrey Snyder
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled In re
2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00959, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
Worth.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Singh
brought the lawsuit against the Defendants for alleged violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 16-11587, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant MANOJ P. SINGH is represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, L.L.P.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mgyandoh@ktmc.com

Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY SNYDER is represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 560-2201
          Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM A. GERHART, On Behalf of Himself and
the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e)
Plan, and/or Alternatively on Behalf of a Class Consisting of
Similarly Situated Participants and Beneficiaries of the Plans, is
represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 E. 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017-0000
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com

Defendants-Appellees RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, JAMES F. GOOCH,
JOSEPH C. MAGNACCA, MARTIN O. MOAD, ROBERT E. ABERNATHY, FRANK J.
BELATTI, JULIA A. DOBSON, DANIEL R. FEEHAN, H. EUGENE LOCKHART,
JACK L. MESSMAN, THOMAS G. PLASKELL, EDWINA D. WOODBURY,
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK 401(K) PLAN,
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO 1165(E)
PLAN, RADIOSHACK 401(K) PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE,
RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, JUSTIN
JOHNSON, MARK BARFIELD, KARINA DAVIS, ERIC HALES, MICHAEL E.
KEYSER, KEVIN KRAUTKRAMER, SRI REDDY and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
RADIOSHACK are represented by:

          Matthew Allen Russell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P.
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 324-1771
          E-mail: marussell@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130-6146
          Telephone: (504) 310-4088
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2022
          E-mail: howshapiro@proskauer.com

Defendant-Appellee BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO is represented by:

          Dennis J. Keithly, Esq.
          YUNG KEITHLY, L.L.P.
          208 N. Market Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 220-0422
          Facsimile: (214) 220-9932
          E-mail: dennis.keithly@yungkeithly.com


REDBACK ENERGY: Court Certifies Operators Class in "Caffey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Xavier Rodriguez granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL CAFFEY,
ET AL. v. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. SA-16-CV-
777-XR (W.D. Tex.).

Judge Rodriguez further ordered the parties to confer on the
Plaintiffs' motion for approval and distribution of notice.

The Plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act alleging that the Defendants did not include non-
discretionary bonuses into the calculation of the regular rate
when calculating overtime pay.

The class is defined as:

     All hourly paid hands and/or operators who were working in
     Texas and employed by Redback Coil Tubing at any time since
     August 1, 2013.

Any arguments about whether a two-year or three-year limitations
period is appropriate will be resolved when any dispositive motion
is filed on the issue of willfulness (or lack thereof), according
to the order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/nns1Kl from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Michael Caffey and Tyce Ciochon are represented by:

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

Defendants REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, MIKE FERNANDES, PHIL
LANCASTER and MARK LAYTON are represented by:

          William Robinson Stukenberg, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 3325
          Houston, TX 77002-7360
          Telephone: (713) 568-7854
          Facsimile: (713) 650-0405
          E-mail: William.Stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces 2 Class Suits in San Mateo Court
-------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has
not yet responded to two class action complaints.

On September 20, 2016, a putative class action on behalf of
alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's
ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement used in connection with the Company's initial public
offering was commenced in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo (No. 16 Civ. 01454) against the
Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint asserts claims against all defendants
pursuant to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and control person claims
against current and former directors and officers pursuant to
Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On or about October 6, 2016, subsequent to the balance sheet date,
a substantially similar action alleging claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act was filed against the same defendants
in the same court by a different plaintiff (No. 16 Civ. 01753).

The complaints allege that the Company's registration statement
failed to disclose that the Company was unprepared or unable to
comply with certain regulatory special controls and to provide the
FDA with a post- market surveillance study on the Company's ReWalk
Personal device, and that, as a result of such alleged omission,
the plaintiffs suffered damages.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaints. The Company
believes that the allegations made in the complaints are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against the
complaints.

The Company is an innovative medical device company that is
designing, developing and commercializing exoskeletons that allow
wheelchair-bound individuals with mobility impairments or other
medical conditions the ability to stand and walk once again.


RL REPPERT: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Askew" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants RL Reppert Inc., RL Reppert Inc. Employees Profit
Sharing 401K Plan, RL Reppert Inc. HRA Medical Expense
Reimbursement Plan, RL Reppert Inc. Medical Plan, RL Reppert Inc.
Money Purchase Plan and Richard Reppert filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Derrick Askew v. RL Reppert
Inc, et al., Case No. 5-11-cv-04003, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Derrick Askew v. RL Reppert
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3943, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 4,
2016, Plaintiff Derrick Askew filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the his lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Derrick
Askew v. R.L. Reppert, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3924, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On October 21, 2016, the Class Action Reporter reported that
District Judge James Knoll Gardner narrows claims in the lawsuit,
which was filed on June 17, 2011, alleging, among other things,
violations of the document production requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

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

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

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

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

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

          F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, III, Esq.
          FLAMM WALTON HEIMBACH & LAMM PC
          794 Penllyn Pike
          Blue Bell, PA 19446
          Telephone: (267) 419-1505
          Facsimile: (267) 419-1560
          E-mail: fefitzpatrick@flammlaw.com

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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


SCHIBI TRANSPORTATION: Underpaid Drivers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Grisolano, writing for Land Line, reports that a group of
truckers have filed a lawsuit against a Missouri trucking company
claiming they and other drivers were systematically underpaid for
loads they delivered on behalf of the company.

The suit, which was filed in Pettis County Superior Court in
Sedalia, Mo., seeks class action status, and names Schibi
Transportation LLC, Bulk Express LLC, and their owner, Rick
Schibi, as defendants.  The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive
damages as well as a jury trial.

The plaintiffs alleges that Schibi and his companies committed
breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment by systematically underpaying the plaintiffs and
similarly-situated potential class members, according to court
documents filed Oct. 20.  The lawsuit claims drivers were entitled
to 25 percent of the gross dollar amount paid for each load they
hauled, but were systematically paid less than that for the loads.
The suit also alleges that drivers are not permitted to see rate
sheets or other documents that show the actual dollar amount
customers paid for each load hauled.

"In this case, the plaintiffs were promised compensation at a rate
of 25 percent of what the line haul paid," plaintiffs' attorney
Chris Dandurand of the Gorny Law Firm in Kansas City, Mo., said in
a statement to Land Line.  "When the drivers learned that they
were receiving less than 25 percent of what clients were paying
per load, they understandably were frustrated."

Kyle Martin, an OOIDA member from Sedalia, Mo., said he hopes the
lawsuit will empower other drivers who feel they may be receiving
less than what they're entitled to from their employers.

"We hope it will let drivers know they don't have to take s---
from these people," he said. "You've got more power than you
think."

Clay Crawford -- ccrawford@fwpclaw.com -- of Foland, Wickens,
Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, P.C., an attorney representing Schibi
Transportation, said his clients deny the allegations in the
lawsuit.

"The Court has not found any basis for a class action nor have
plaintiffs proven any of their allegations in the case," he said
in an emailed statement to Land Line.  "Otherwise, we think it is
inappropriate for us or any other party to comment on pending
litigation."


SIMONTON BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Substandard Windows
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Campbell, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group
of homeowners is suing a home improvement businesses, alleging a
distribution of substandard windows and failure to deliver quality
products as advertised.

On Oct. 17, a class action complaint was filed in U.S. District
Count for the District of Minnesota against Ohio-based Simonton
Building Products LLC, previously known as Simonton Building
Products Inc., and other related companies.  The defendants'
answer to the complaint is due Nov. 9.

The suit says the two-pane or insulated glass windows sold to the
plaintiffs failed to meet standards, showing early defects.
Simonton declined comment on the lawsuit.

Speaking to Legal Newsline, Alex Nelson -- anelson@bensonpc.com
-- a partner at Benson, Karrane, Storz & Nelson PC, and a
construction defect attorney who represents the plaintiffs -- said
the firm set up a website a year ago regarding the large rate of
failure that Simonton's insulated glass units (IGUs) experience.
Since then, the law firm has received approximately 100 potential
client inquiries from homeowners in 23 different states.

"We were actually quite shocked at the magnitude of the Simonton
IGU failures and the amount of money that homeowners are being
forced to spend to replace them themselves," Mr. Nelson said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs state that there have been numerous
reports of "fogging" or "condensation" between window panes on
certain Simonton windows.

As a result, the plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to
disclose to customers the defects of the products or warn them of
the known risks before the windows had been installed.

The lawsuit states the defendants failed to provide quality
products demonstrated through their advertising and warranties,
causing the plaintiffs to pay for the removal and replacement of
the failed windows and to hire transportation to pick up
replacement windows that was not part of the warranty.

Many homeowners report that their warranty claims to Simonton have
been wrongfully denied, the suit says.

"Our engineers tell us that the IGUs are substandard in their
design and workmanship, and that they are essentially 'designed to
fail'," Mr. Nelson said.  "In our opinion, the warranty coverage
for the defective products is severely inadequate."

However, despite the filed class action complaint against Simonton
Building Products, it is believed the defendants have yet to
change their advertising and marketing of the windows.

"We believe that both their warranty treatment of failed IGU seals
and the design and construction of their IGUs have been consistent
over time," Mr. Nelson said.


SNC-LAVALIN: Court Reconsiders Role of "Public Corrections"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fleming, Esq., Thomas Wilson, Esq., of Dentons, in an
article for JDSupra, report that In Drywall Acoustic Lathing and
Insulation, Local 675 Pension Fund (Trustees of) v SNC-Lavalin
Group Inc.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined, in the
context of competing motions for summary judgment, what
constitutes public correction of an alleged misrepresentation in a
secondary market securities class action.  The decision in Drywall
Acoustic builds on Justice Belobaba's analysis in Swisscanto v
Blackberry and recognizes that the "public correction" requirement
serves as more than a mere "time-post" for the measurement of
damages.  Significantly, the Court confirmed that a public
correction is a "constituent element in the determination of
liability" and, in complex cases where the existence of a public
correction is in dispute, such issues may not be appropriate for
determination by way of a motion for summary judgment.

The Facts

The plaintiff shareholders commenced a class action against the
defendant reporting issuer, SNC-Lavalin, as well as several of its
officers and directors, alleging that SNC-Lavalin's core documents
contained misrepresentations that, once discovered, caused SNC-
Lavalin's share price to plummet, resulting in over $1 billion in
shareholder losses.  Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that
SNC-Lavalin's core documents falsely stated that (i) SNC-Lavalin
was a "socially responsible company", (ii) SNC-Lavalin had
controls, policies, and practices in place designed to ensure
compliance with anti-bribery laws, (iii) SNC-Lavalin's internal
controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and
procedures were properly designed and operating effectively, and
(iv) SNC-Lavalin's business was being conducted in compliance with
a code of ethics.  The plaintiffs alleged that these
misrepresentations were publically corrected through a series of
press releases, articles and reports (collectively, the
"Disclosures") which revealed, among other things, that SNC-
Lavalin had paid bribes to foreign government officials.

The defendants brought a surgical summary judgment motion on the
issue of whether the alleged misrepresentations had, in fact, been
publicly corrected.  The defendants argued that: (i) none of the
Disclosures were corrective of the alleged misrepresentations
because they did not "logically connect with the statement in the
core document and, therefore, the statement [said] nothing about
the truth or falsity of the statement in the core document"; and
(ii) a public correction must have a "significant impact on the
valuation of the securities being traded in the secondary market"
and that evidence of such impact was not present in this case,
based on statistical evidence analyzing the Disclosures' impact on
SNC-Lavalin's share price.

The plaintiffs brought their own motion for summary judgment to
determine whether misrepresentations and public corrections had,
in fact, been made and filed their own statistical evidence
regarding the impact of the Disclosures on the SNC-Lavalin's share
price.  Within the context of these competing motions for summary
judgment, the defendants brought a motion for directions to
determine whether, and in what manner, the summary judgment
motions should proceed.

Issues

The Court considered two issues:

What role does public correction play in secondary market
securities class actions?

Could the issues relating to public correction, on the facts of
this case, be determined summarily?

Decision

As set out further below, the Court permanently stayed the
plaintiffs' and defendants' summary judgment motions; in doing so,
the Court distinguished Swisscanto, which was decided within the
context of a low-threshold leave application, and held that a
public correction is an integral element of liability in secondary
market misrepresentation class actions.

The role of "public correction"

The Court affirmed that a public correction is "a constituent
element and a necessary pre-requisite for a cause of action under
s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act" and agreed with earlier
case law which held that public correction of a core document can
come from any number of sources including the issuer, market
analysts, short-sellers, newspaper articles, and credit rating
agencies.

The Court generally agreed with Justice Belobaba's analysis in
Swisscanto: a public correction need not mirror the alleged
misrepresentation and is not intended to act as a significant
hurdle to obtaining leave to bring an action for damages.[12] That
said, the public correction element can, in certain cases, play a
significant role in the proceeding and is more than a mere "time-
post" for the assessment of damages:[13]

. . . in a particular case, the public correction component of the
statutory cause of action can play much more than a relatively
modest role in the statutory scheme.  In addition to being a
constituent element in the determination of liability, the public
correction of the misrepresentation plays a fundamental ingredient
in quantifying that liability; that is, public correction plays a
fundamental role in the calculation of damages.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs' submission that a public
correction only serves to define the class period and class
membership; instead, as a constituent element of the statutory
cause of action acting as both a surrogate for causation and as a
significant tool in the calculation of damages, public correction
has the potential of becoming a dispositive issue in any given
dispute "much like a limitation period defence can be a free-
standing dispositive issue."[14]

Summary judgment

In light of the sophisticated and highly theoretical statistical
models tendered by the parties, the Court concluded that the
issues raised by the parties' summary judgment motions could not
be fairly determined without a trial:

. . . both the statistical analysis and even more so the semantic
analysis of what counts for a public correction raise numerous
genuine issues and . . . are far too complicated and nuanced to be
fairly and justly determined summarily.

The Court noted that, in the case before it, determining whether
the Disclosures qualified as public corrections was more than a
"mechanical exercise".  Given the sophisticated and complex models
tendered by the parties, combined with the "early stage of the
development of the law about the statutory cause of action", the
Court was not willing to determine the genuine issues raised by
the parties' summary judgment motions without the benefit of a
full trial record.

Comment

Drywall Acoustic makes a significant contribution to the
developing case law regarding the identification, role, and
significance of a public correction in secondary market securities
class actions.  As a constituent element of the statutory cause of
action, the public correction element has the potential of
becoming a free-standing dispositive issue, not unlike a
limitation period defence, and, in complex cases, may not be
determinable by way of summary judgment.


SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces 6 Class Actions Over Enbridge Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against six putative class action lawsuits by purported
stockholders of Spectra Energy that challenge the proposed merger
with Enbridge, Inc.

The Company said, "On September 6, 2016, we announced that we
entered into a definitive merger agreement with Enbridge Inc.
(Enbridge) under which Enbridge and Spectra Energy will combine in
a stock-for-stock merger transaction, which values Spectra
Energy's stock at approximately $28 billion, based on the closing
price of Enbridge's common shares as of September 2, 2016. This
transaction was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of
both Spectra Energy and Enbridge and is expected to close in the
first quarter of 2017, subject to shareholder and certain
regulatory approvals and other customary conditions."

"Upon completion of the proposed merger, Spectra Energy
shareholders will receive 0.984 Enbridge common shares for each
share of Spectra Energy stock they own. The consideration to be
received by Spectra Energy shareholders is valued at $40.33 per
Spectra Energy share, based on the closing price of Enbridge
common shares as of September 2, 2016, representing an approximate
11.5% premium to the closing price of Spectra Energy stock as of
September 2, 2016. Upon completion of the merger, Enbridge
shareholders are expected to own approximately 57% of the combined
company and Spectra Energy shareholders are expected to own
approximately 43%."

"We and our board of directors are named as defendants in six
putative class action lawsuits filed by purported stockholders of
Spectra Energy that challenge the proposed merger with Enbridge.
The lawsuits include Paul Parshall v. Spectra Energy Corp, et al.,
12809-CB, filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware, and Mary Lincoln v. Spectra Energy Corp, et al., 16-cv-
03019, Joseph Koller v. Spectra Energy Corp, et al., 16-cv-03059,
Joseph Costner v. Spectra Energy Corp et al., 16-cv-03065, John L.
Williams v. Spectra Energy Corp et al., 16-cv-03069, and Joseph
McMillan v. Spectra Energy Corp et al., 16-cv-03130,  all filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. The complaints allege, among other things, that Spectra
Energy and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
(in the Delaware lawsuit) and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder (in the
Southern District of Texas lawsuits), as applicable, by issuing or
causing to be issued an allegedly materially misleading and
incomplete preliminary proxy statement in connection with the
proposed merger."

"Enbridge and its subsidiary are also named as defendants in the
Delaware lawsuit, and the Delaware complaint alleges, among other
things, that Enbridge and its subsidiary aided and abetted Spectra
Energy's board of directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things, an injunction
against the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent it is
already implemented, declaratory relief, costs and attorneys'
fees, and/or damages.

"We believe the actions are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them."

Spectra Energy Corp, through its subsidiaries and equity
affiliates, owns and operates a large and diversified portfolio of
complementary natural gas-related energy assets, and owns and
operates a crude oil pipeline system that connects Canadian and
United States (U.S.) producers to refineries in the U.S. Rocky
Mountain and Midwest regions.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: 10th Cir. Denied Plaintiff's Rehearing Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied the class
action plaintiff's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc,
and the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a petition for a writ
of certiorari was October 31, 2016.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 in forward loss charges on October 25, 2012. The
lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons other
than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5,
2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 11, 2015.  On July
5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed
the District Courts' dismissal. On July 20, 2016, the plaintiff
filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

On August 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. The
deadline for the plaintiffs to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari was October 31, 2016.

At the time this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company was not aware of
any petition for writ of certiorari having been filed with the
United States Supreme Court. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these allegations, and management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Spirit is one of the largest independent non-OEM (original
equipment manufacturer) aircraft parts designers and manufacturers
of commercial aerostructures in the world, based on annual
revenues, as well as the largest independent supplier of
aerostructures to Boeing.  It is also one of the largest
independent suppliers of aerostructures to Airbus.  Boeing and
Airbus are the two largest aircraft OEMs in the world.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Motion to Remand Securities Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the securities class case to state
court is currently under consideration.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the
Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on
March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports
to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to
disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the
March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount,
rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 24, 2016, the Company removed the action to federal court
in the District of Arizona. On April 18, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and that motion
is currently under consideration.

The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or
any potential liability from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers
fresh, natural and organic food through a complete shopping
experience that includes fresh produce, bulk foods, vitamins and
supplements, packaged groceries, meat and seafood, deli, baked
goods, dairy products, frozen foods, natural body care and
household items catering to consumers' growing interest in health
and wellness.


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Phishing" Scam Actions Transferred
----------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has granted a motion to transfer
and consolidate all four "Phishing" scam actions to the federal
court in the District of Arizona.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of current and former Company team
members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against a Company team
member.  The complaints allege the Company failed to properly
safeguard the PII in accordance with applicable law.  The
complaints seek damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and consolidate all
four of the cases to the federal court in the District of Arizona.
The JPML granted the motion on October 6, 2016, and the cases
remained stayed pending the court's scheduling of an initial case
management conference.

The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously, but it is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of,
or any potential liability from, the cases.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers
fresh, natural and organic food through a complete shopping
experience that includes fresh produce, bulk foods, vitamins and
supplements, packaged groceries, meat and seafood, deli, baked
goods, dairy products, frozen foods, natural body care and
household items catering to consumers' growing interest in health
and wellness.


STAR FURNITURE: Faces "Letelier" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LETELIER on behalf of herself, individually and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. STAR FURNITURE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03377 (S.D. Tex., November 15, 2016),
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment
interest for Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay overtime
wages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The "Putative Class" are current and former employees (including
Plaintiffs) of Defendant who work, or have worked, for Defendant
as "Sales Associates" and whose job duties included consulting
customers and selling furniture.

Star Furniture Company operates home furnishing stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


STARKIST CO: Hendricks Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick Hendricks filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Patrick Hendricks, et al. v. Starkist Co., et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00729-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Hendricks, et al. v.
Starkist Co., et al., Case No. 16-17056, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., gave final approval of the parties'
settlement.  The Court approved the settlement amount of $12
million, payments of attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,445,012,
and service award in the amount of $5,000 for Plaintiff Hendricks.

Eric Michael Lindberg, an objector, also filed an appeal in the
Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

Objector-Appellee BRITTANY FERENCE is represented by:

          Matthew Kurilich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATT KURILICH
          17321 Irvine Blvd., Suite 115
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 734-3715
          Facsimile: (714) 734-3716
          E-mail: mattkurilich@gmail.com

Objector-Appellee KELLY MARIE SPANN is represented by:

          Jonathan Edward Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 St. Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John C. Kress, Esq.
          THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4247 South Grand Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63111
          Telephone: (314) 631-3883
          Facsimile: (314) 631-3885
          E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steve A. Miller, Esq.
          STEVE A. MILLER, P.C.
          1625 Larimer Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9933
          Facsimile: (800) 200-9934
          E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com

Objectors-Appellees JULIUS DUNMORE, JEMEA GRAHAM and VALERIE
WILLIFORD are represented by:

          Alan J. Sherwood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD
          26755 Contessa Street
          Hayward, CA 94545
          Telephone: (510) 409-6199
          Facsimile: (510) 903-1773
          E-mail: alasherwood@earthlink.net

Objector-Appellee ERIC MICHAEL LINDBERG is represented by:

          Sam Andrew Miorelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAM MIORELLI, P.A.
          764 Ellwood Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (321) 698-2776
          E-mail: sam.miorelli@gmail.com

Defendant STARKIST CO. is represented by:

          Robert B. Hawk, Esq.
          Stacy R. Hovan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          4085 Campbell Avenue, Suite 100
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 463-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com
                  stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          John Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 402-3015
          E-mail: chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Shepard, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2310
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com


STARKIST CO: Objector Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Hendricks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kerry Ann Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Patrick Hendricks, et al. v. Starkist Co.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00729-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 6,
2016, the Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., granted the Plaintiff's
renewed motion for final approval of a settlement and approved a
settlement amount of $12 million, payments of attorneys' fees in
the amount of $3,445,012.35, and service award in the amount of
$5,000 for Plaintiff Hendricks.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Hendricks, et al. v.
Starkist Co., Case No. 16-17020, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 30, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 30, 2016;

   -- Appellant Kerry Ann Sweeney's opening brief is due on
      February 8, 2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Hendricks and Starkist Co.'s answering
      brief is due on March 10, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott Bursor, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellee STARKIST CO. is represented by:

          Robert Brian Hawk, Esq.
          Stacy R. Hovan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          4085 Campbell Avenue
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 463-4008
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com
                  stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          John Christopher Mitchell, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 402-3015
          E-mail: chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Shepard, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2310
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com


SUNTRUST BANK: Trapp Appeals M.D.N.C. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle A. Trapp and David Allen Trapp filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Michelle Trapp v. SunTrust
Bank, Case No. 1:15-cv-00937-CCE-JLW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Michelle Trapp v. SunTrust
Bank, Case No. 16-2293, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHELLE A. TRAPP, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, and DAVID ALLEN TRAPP, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Suzanne Rose Begnoche, Esq.
          SUZANNE BEGNOCHE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          312 West Franklin Street
          Chapel Hill, NC 27516
          Telephone: (919) 960-6108
          E-mail: begnochelaw@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          12515 Warwick Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: leonard@clalegal.com
                  susan@clalegal.com

Defendant-Appellee SUNTRUST BANK is represented by:

          Timothy Patrick Lendino, Esq.
          Robert R. Marcus, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP
          101 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 384-2671
          Facsimile: (704) 384-2931
          E-mail: tim.lendino@smithmoorelaw.com
                  rob.marcus@smithmoorelaw.com


SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Etchieson" Suit Invokes FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON ETCHIESON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., and ALPINE
ACCESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02779 (D. Col., November
15, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff performed work off the clock
without minimum wage payment and/or overtime payment for all hours
worked over 40 hours per week, was not paid bonuses in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act,
and the Colorado Wage Order.

SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC. provides call center services for a number
of well-known global 2,000 companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
     ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
     8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
     Prairie Village, KS 66208
     Phone: (913) 766-5587
     Fax: (816) 875-5069
     E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
     Web site: http://www.rmlegalgroup.com


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action
complaint remains pending.

The Company said, "In January and March 2016, securities class
action lawsuits were filed against us, our chief executive
officer, our former chief operating officer and our former chief
financial officer in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. Each complaint was brought on behalf of
an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock between
March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, and alleges claims arising
under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. Each complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
making material misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE2.
Each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, and costs."

"In May 2016, the complaints were consolidated and the court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in July 2016 and filed a
further amended consolidated complaint in August 2016.

"In October 2016 we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety. We believe we have valid
defenses against these claims, and will engage in a vigorous
defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company that was incorporated in Delaware on
July 7, 2006 and has a principal place of business in Watertown,
Massachusetts.


TIME INC: Appellate Briefs Due by Jan. 26
-----------------------------------------
Time, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that appellate briefs will be
filed between November 4, 2016 and January 26, 2017, in the appeal
related to the Coulter-Owens class action.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages.

On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because
the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury
from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in
part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the
breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust
enrichment claims to proceed.

On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the
named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents
who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a
subscription to TIME, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any
website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On
July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the
class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000
consumers.

On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary
judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in
opposition to their adversaries' motions. On February 16, 2016,
the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the case.

On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit
Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's
claims. On May 26, 2016, Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her
claims. Plaintiff filed her opposition brief on June 23, 2016 and
Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 12, 2016.

On September 22, 2016, the Motions Part of the Circuit Court
issued an order directing that Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
appeal should be decided by the appellate panel that was assigned
the plantiff's appeal on the merits. Pursuant to a new schedule
set by the Court, the appellate briefs will be filed between
November 4, 2016 and January 26, 2017.

Time Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is one of the world's
leading media companies, with a monthly global print audience of
over 120 million and worldwide digital properties that attract
more than 150 million visitors each month, including over 60
websites.


TIME INC: Motion to Dismiss "Perlin" Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Time, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting the
Court's decision on the motion to dismiss the Perlin class action
lawsuit.

On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Rose Coulter-
Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging violations of the VRPA as well as a claim for
unjust enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan
residents who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc.

On May 6, 2016 and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the
Complaint. Perlin filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and
Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 11, 2016.

Oral argument was held on Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss on
September 1, 2016.

"We are awaiting the Court's decision," the Company said.

Time Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is one of the world's
leading media companies, with a monthly global print audience of
over 120 million and worldwide digital properties that attract
more than 150 million visitors each month, including over 60
websites.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Doshi" Case Transferred to Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case,
Doshi v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On August 1, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Jodie P.
Morrison, and Lee H. Kalowski, entitled Doshi v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06106 ("Doshi Action").
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Company
securities between June 24, 2015, and July 25, 2016, and alleges
that, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions about the
Company's clinical trials for its drug candidate, galeterone. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On October 3, 2016,
the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Tokai is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other
hormonally driven diseases.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Jackie888 Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants
have moved to dismiss or stay the action, Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company, Jodie
P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J.
Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"),
entitled Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
No. CGC-16-553796. The lawsuit alleges that, in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), the Company's
registration statement for its IPO made false and misleading
statements and omissions about the Company's clinical trials for
galeterone. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers
of Company common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual
defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

Tokai is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other
hormonally driven diseases.


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidation of Doshi & Garbowski Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff in the Doshi class action lawsuit has filed a motion to
consolidate the Doshi and Garbowski class actions for all
purposes.

On September 29, 2016, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, Jodie Pope
Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, Seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich,
David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik, III, and the underwriters of
the Company's IPO, entitled Garbowski, et al. v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11963 ("Garbowski
Action"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants and the
Company's registration statement for its IPO made false and
misleading statements and omissions about the Company's clinical
trials for galeterone, in violation of the Securities Act, the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of purchasers of Company common stock in or traceable to the
Company's IPO as well as a class of purchasers of Company common
stock between September 17, 2014, and July 25, 2016. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Tokai is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other
hormonally driven diseases.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring Insulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Folsom consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against an auto
manufacturer over claims it uses soy-based wiring insulation that
attracts rodents and damages vehicles.

Steven Weidenbacher filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Oct. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against Toyota Motor Corp. and
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. alleging that they violated the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and
other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
economic damages, including but not limited to costly repairs,
loss of use, value and resale value of his 2015 Corolla and other
related damages.  The plaintiff holds Toyota Motor Corp. and
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. responsible because the defendants
allegedly negligently used an edible, soy-based wiring insulation
throughout their vehicles that baits rodents, failed to disclose
the defect and refused to repair the vehicles under its new
vehicle limited warranty.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this action as proper class action, certifying
plaintiff and his counsel as class representatives, award for all
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
relief as the court may deems just.  He is represented by Nicholas
R. Rockforte --nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- and Christopher L.
Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin
LLP in Plaquemine and Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- and
Patrick M. Wallace -- pat@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield, Bryson &
Mason LLP in Raleigh, North Carolina.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-15202


TRANSUNION LLC: Loses Bid to Decertify FCRA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Mihalko, Esq. -- meagan.mihalko@troutmansanders.com -- and
David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that a
district court in the Northern District of California denied
TransUnion LLC's motion to decertify a Fair Credit Reporting Act
class action that was certified prior to the Supreme Court's 2016
Spokeo ruling.  The class action case accused TransUnion of
including inaccurate information on its consumer reports as well
as failing to comply with the FCRA's file disclosure obligations
in response to consumers' requests.

In May of 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeker certified two
classes in connection with TransUnion Rental Screening, Inc.'s
"SmartMove" reports.  According to the Complaint, the SmartMove
reports contained terrorist alerts, and the alert information was
not included in response to consumers' file disclosure requests.
The first class -- the disclosure class -- was certified under 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681g, and consisted of all consumers who were the
subject of TransUnion SmartMove reports that contained "at least
one item of 'AlertList' information who requested a file
disclosure and were sent a disclosure by TransUnion."  The second
class was certified under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b) and also
consisted of consumers who were the subject of TransUnion
SmartMove reports that contained at least one item of "Alert List"
information.

After the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, TransUnion
moved to decertify the class.  TransUnion argued that the class
claims failed to sufficiently allege a concrete injury to give the
named plaintiff standing.  The Court rejected TransUnion's Spokeo-
related arguments noting that the Court saw "little difficulty in
concluding that the alleged inaccuracies -- being wrongly branded a
potential terrorist, or wrongly ascribed a criminal record" were
themselves concrete harms.  Comparing the facts of this case to
other recent Spokeo-based decisions, the Court found that "a
report that misidentifies someone as a terrorist or criminal 'is
not as benign as an incorrect zip code.'"

The Court also rejected TransUnion's arguments regarding the
limited dissemination of the information, finding that the "core
harm is the sharing of erroneous and inherently damning
information about the plaintiff -- regardless of how widely it is
broadcast."

With respect to the disclosure claim, the Court found that the
failure to provide the necessary information in connection with
class members' file disclosure requests impeded a consumer's
ability to "monitor her file for falsity."  Thus, the Court found
the impediment of non-disclosure to be a real injury and that
"preventing a consumer from monitoring her file presents a 'risk
of real harm.'"


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Argue Pre-Trial Class Action Motions
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Bortolin, Esq. -- bortolinw@bennettjones.com
-- and Michael Eizenga, Esq. -- eizengam@bennettjones.com -- of
Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the
champagne glasses won't be dry and put away before U.S. President-
elect Donald Trump's lawyers will be arguing a series of pre-trial
motions in Low v Trump University, a U.S. class action scheduled
to proceed to jury trial in less than three weeks.  One of these
motions, by Mr. Trump's lawyers, is remarkable, as it seeks to
pre-emptively exclude as evidence all "statements by or about Mr.
Trump made or publicized while he was running for President of the
United States", on the basis that such statements could be
prejudicial to Trump, and are irrelevant.  In their responding
brief, plaintiffs' counsel colourfully summarized the motion as
follows:

Donald Trump's dizzying array of objectively false, contradictory,
and self-defeating statements have left him so flummoxed he is
demanding that the Court create a new category of immunity to
protect him from himself.

Background

Bennett Jones has reported previously on the Low class action, as
well as about a sibling class action run by the same plaintiff
counsel (Cohen v Trump), which is also moving towards trial.  Both
cases revolve around "Trump University", a series of real estate
investment education programs and live seminars offered from 2007-
2010, costing up to $35,000 each.  The plaintiffs allege these
programs failed to deliver on their advertised promises.  Mr.
Trump is personally named as a defendant in both proceedings,
based on allegations that he was heavily involved in the promotion
of Trump University, and either approved or personally uttered the
false representations at issue.  The case is fascinating from a
Canadian perspective, both because of
Mr. Trump's status as a celebrity / leader of the free world, and
also because of the rarity of class action trials in Canada.

The Exclusion Motion

The brief filed by Mr. Trump's lawyers in support of the exclusion
motion notes that Mr. Trump has been the focus of "perhaps
unprecedented" media coverage during his presidential campaign,
and expresses concern that the plaintiffs will reference
"extraneous" and "irrelevant" statements made during the campaign
"in an attempt to inflame and prejudice the jury". The brief
declines to be more specific.  The exclusionary order requested by
Mr. Trump's lawyers is remarkably broad in scope, and encompasses
all "evidence and argument relating to statements made by or about
Mr. Trump outside the adjudicative process", including (but not
limited to) campaign speeches, rally speeches and tweets.  Mr.
Trump's lawyers argue that such statements are irrelevant,
"distracting", and pose a "significant risk" of undue prejudice.

Plaintiffs' counsel is opposing the motion, as you may have
deduced from the excerpt above.  They argue that it is impossible
to determine the relevance or potential prejudicial impact of such
a broad and non-specific category of evidence. While refusing to
"outline for Trump" their cross-examination strategy, Plaintiffs'
counsel maintained that statements made during the campaign could
be relevant, particularly for dealing with issues of credibility.
They also denied that any such evidence would be unfairly
prejudicial to Mr. Trump.

A Canadian Perspective

The motion brought by Mr. Trump's lawyers makes little sense from
a Canadian perspective.  First, the breadth and vagueness of the
motion would likely make it very difficult for a Canadian court to
accept.  Rules of admissibility in Canada are similar to those in
the United States: evidence must be relevant to be admissible, and
its probative value (that is, its tendency to prove or disprove a
relevant fact) must outweigh its prejudicial impact (if there is
one).  As plaintiffs' counsel noted in arguing against the
exclusion motion, it is very difficult to engage in this balancing
exercise when the evidence in question is not identified with any
precision.

Second, while the vast majority of what Mr. Trump has said during
the campaign very likely is irrelevant to the issues in the trial,
it is likely an overgeneralization to say that nothing
Mr. Trump has said during the campaign, or that has been said
about Mr. Trump during the campaign, could possibly be relevant.
A witness's credibility as to the subject matter they are
testifying about is always relevant, and one of the most common
ways in which a witness's credibility is tested is by presenting
him or her with "prior inconsistent statements" that contradict
their current testimony.  To the extent that Mr. Trump has made
statements during the campaign that would tend to contradict his
testimony at trial, it would be relevant to his credibility. Until
hearing his current testimony, it is impossible to know what
previous statements he has made that might be inconsistent. The
same is true of other witnesses, who may also have commented about
Mr. Trump during the campaign, and whose statements would also be
captured by the order.  Any statements relating to the subject
matter of the trial could potentially become relevant. Take, for
example, a Trump campaign video on YouTube entitled "Trump
University Truth", in which Trump speaks rapidly into the camera
for over three minutes.

This example also illustrates the third curious feature of the
motion brought by Mr. Trump's lawyers: Mr. Trump's prior
statements about Trump University do not seem to be particularly
incriminating.  Prior inconsistent statements are most useful when
a witness has made a damaging admission outside of court, but then
tries to say something more favourable on the stand.  Far from
making admissions, however, Mr. Trump has tended to vigorously
defend Trump University on the campaign trail.  In fact, Mr.
Trump's most damaging comments about Trump University seem to be
the ones he made in deposition testimony as part of the
adjudicative process (ironically, the one category of evidence
that Trump's lawyers do not seek to exclude).

If the concern is that plaintiffs' counsel might try to paint
Trump as dishonest, generally, by showing that he habitually
misstates the facts when discussing unrelated subject matter, then
this approach also would not make sense, from a Canadian
perspective, for two reasons.  First, according to the "collateral
evidence rule", a party that asks a witness about otherwise
irrelevant subject matter to test their credibility is not
entitled to adduce "collateral" evidence to disprove the witness's
answer; i.e., the witness's answer has to be accepted as truth,
even though it might be demonstrably false.  It is therefore not
an effective way to test a witness's credibility, and is usually
avoided.  Second, Mr. Trump's credibility does not seem to be a
significant issue in the Low class action.  There are some narrow
issues where Mr. Trump's testimony may be important, but the core
issues in the proceeding are questions of objective fact that Mr.
Trump's testimony should not be necessary to answering.
Specifically, whether certain representations were made in Trump
University's advertising; whether those representations were
material; and whether those representations were accurate.

From Bennett Jones' perspective, the exclusion motion appears to
face steep odds.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Trial to Proceed on Nov. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Davis, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that in less than three weeks, the class-action lawsuit against
Donald Trump and his defunct Trump University is set to go to
trial in a downtown San Diego courtroom.

That likely won't change, even with Mr. Trump's presidential win
on election night, legal experts say.  However, it could alter how
personally involved Mr. Trump will be in the federal trial, in
which he must defend accusations he misled and defrauded students
who enrolled in his real estate academy.

Attorneys for both sides were scheduled to be in court on Nov. 10
to make final preparations for jury selection on Nov. 28.  But the
election results and their potential effect on the case will
likely dominate the courtroom discussion and draw a large media
presence.

Mr. Trump's attorneys did not return phone calls and emails
seeking comment on Nov. 9, and lawyers for the students declined
to discuss the case.

As unusual as this situation is, the U.S. Supreme Court has set
legal precedent when it comes to lawsuits against presidents, and
that precedent is what will likely inform how Trump's case
proceeds.

In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones sued then-
President Bill Clinton on accusations of making sexual advances on
her when he was governor.

Clinton fought the sexual harassment lawsuit.  The case made it to
the Supreme Court, which ruled sitting presidents can still be
sued for events that happened before they took office or are
unrelated to their presidential duties.

"Clinton v. Jones established that a president does not have
absolute immunity," attorney Robert S. Bennett, who argued on
Clinton's behalf to the Supreme Court in 1997, said in an
interview on Nov. 9.

The ruling also said presidents don't have the right to delay such
a lawsuit just because they are in the Oval Office.

While the Clinton case only applies to sitting presidents, Bennett
doesn't think Mr. Trump's status as president-elect will make much
of a practical difference in the looming trial, especially given
the possibility that the trial will not have concluded by his Jan.
20 inauguration.

Still, legal experts expect Mr. Trump's attorneys to ask for the
trial to be delayed until he leaves the White House, citing how
busy he will be.  But such a request would not be expected to
succeed.

"I think the likelihood of the trial getting delayed is very low.
If it is delayed, it's delayed for four years presumably, if not
longer," said Shaun Martin, a University of San Diego School of
Law professor who teaches civil procedure.

"If anything is going to happen (with this trial), it's going to
happen now.  The advantage of it happening now is that he's not
president yet," Mr. Martin said.

That the 6-year-old lawsuit is so close to trial also makes it
more likely to proceed as scheduled. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel, who will be presiding over the trial, has been reluctant
to grant any more delays.

Mr. Bennett said case management, which was one of the major
points made in the Clinton ruling, will be key here.

"It will be up to the court to manage the schedule vis-Ö-vis the
new president's time," Mr. Bennett said.

In the lawsuit, filed in 2010, students allege they paid up to
$35,000 to attend seminars and learn inside secrets to success in
real estate from mentors who were "handpicked" by Mr. Trump.
Instead, they claim the program was nothing more than an
infomercial trying to squeeze more money out of students, and they
did not learn what was promised.

Mr. Trump has pointed to a large number of students who gave the
program positive reviews and blamed the plaintiffs' lack of
success on laziness and the downturn in the real estate market.

The trial is set to unfold in two parts.  In the liability phase,
expected to last four to six weeks, the evidence will mostly
revolve around whether Trump University misled students by using
the term "university" and claiming that Mr. Trump "handpicked" the
instructors. If he loses, then the damages phase would begin, in
which every eligible class member from California, Florida and New
York might have to be considered separately as to how much they
were damaged and what they are owed.

Mr. Trump has said previously he plans to testify in person, but
his new presidential status might change that.

Assuming the trial goes on as scheduled, Mr. Trump's attorneys
could ask the judge to excuse him from having to testify and
instead show jurors video from his previous depositions in the
case.

If the plaintiffs argue that they didn't get to ask Mr. Trump all
their questions, then the judge could allow a final deposition
before trial, or ask him written questions which he must answer
under oath.

Mr. Trump could also testify via live video feed.

One thing is clear: Judge Curiel will have a great deal of
discretion on how the case proceeds and unfolds in his courtroom.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump complained that
Judge Curiel had been unfair in rulings against him, saying the
judge's "Mexican" heritage made him biased against Trump, who
supports tough immigration policies and the construction of a wall
on the U.S.-Mexico border.  Judge Curiel was born in Indiana to
Mexican immigrants.

"Judge Curiel really can do whatever he wants," law professor
Martin said.  "This is an issue very much within his discretion,
which makes it interesting given the vitriol directed his way."

"On the one hand, he might bend over backward to prove he's being
fair and give Trump a break here, or he might not be inclined to
give him a break," Mr. Martin said.

Attorneys for both sides are also waiting for Judge Curiel to
issue rulings on several motions, most of them having to do with
what will and will not be permitted as evidence.

One area that Mr. Trump's lawyers do not want in front of a jury
are any of the comments the Republican made during his campaign,
including anything from public speeches, media interviews, debates
or his Twitter account.

"Before trial begins in this case, prospective members of the jury
will have the opportunity to cast their vote for President," Trump
attorney Daniel Petrocelli wrote in an Oct. 20 motion.  "It is in
the ballot box where they are free to judge Mr. Trump based on all
this and more.  But it is in the jury box where they must judge
him and this case only on evidence and argument relevant to the
issues at hand."

Mr. Trump also could decide to settle the lawsuit before the
trial.  Although the outspoken tycoon might not seem the settling
type, he has settled many past lawsuits brought against him in
business dealings.

Mr. Martin said there are many reasons for both sides to want to
accept a compromise instead of risking an unfavorable jury
verdict.

"If the parties were both rational and intelligent, this case
would probably settle, but not every case is resolved rationally.
Each side may overvalue its chances of success.  That's generally
how things get to trial," he said.

The makeup of San Diego's population will be an important factor
when it comes to picking a jury, experts said.  Mr. Trump received
38.6 percent of the vote in San Diego County to Democrat Hillary
Clinton's 56 percent.

"He may think he's on a winning streak, but he's got to remember
that members of the jury are coming from San Diego, and he's not
riding a winning streak in respect to them," Mr. Martin said.
"I'm sure his lawyers will advise him not to be too cocky about
the (election) results, given the demographics of a San Diego jury
don't mirror necessarily the electorate across the nation."

This is not the only lawsuit Mr. Trump faces as he heads into
office.  A second class-action suit has been filed against him
regarding Trump University in San Diego, as well as a similar
lawsuit in New York.

Dozens of lawsuits related to his other business interests also
have been filed.  But because he doesn't play a central role in
many, the suits will likely be handled by his legal team without
involving him too much personally, Mr. Martin said.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Enter Into Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Donald Trump's attorneys on Nov. 10 agreed to enter settlement
talks in a class-action fraud lawsuit involving the president-
elect and his now-defunct Trump University, raising the
possibility of a quick end to the 6 1/2-year-old case just before
it goes to trial.

Daniel Petrocelli, Mr. Trump's lead attorney on the case, also
asked to delay the trial to early next year, saying Mr. Trump
needed time to work on the transition to the presidency.

"The good news is that he was elected president.  The bad news is
that he has even more work to do now," Mr. Petrocelli told U.S.
District Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

The lawsuit alleging Trump University failed on its promise to
teach success in real estate begins in San Diego on Nov. 28 before
Judge Curiel, an Indiana-born jurist who Trump accused of bias
during the presidential campaign for his Mexican heritage.

Both sides accepted Judge Curiel's offer to work with U.S.
District Judge Jeffrey Miller, who is based in San Diego, on a
possible settlement.

"I can tell you right now I'm all ears," Mr. Petrocelli told Judge
Curiel.

Patrick Coughlin, an attorney for the former students who sued,
told reporters that previous attempts failed.  "We've been miles
apart," he said outside the courthouse.

Judge Curiel didn't signal how he would rule on the request for a
trial delay, but he encouraged efforts to settle. He has been
reluctant to postpone it any longer.

The judge said more than 100 potential jurors would be in court
Nov. 28, and nine would be picked to begin hearing arguments no
more than two days later.  He expects both sides to finish
presenting their cases around Dec. 14.

Mr. Petrocelli said it was unlikely that Trump would attend the
trial, and Judge Curiel said he didn't expect he would.

The attorneys argued for nearly three hours over tentative rulings
that Judge Curiel issued earlier in the day on what evidence to
allow jurors to hear.

Judge Curiel said he was prepared to deny a request by
Mr. Trump's attorneys to prohibit statements made by and about
their client during his campaign.  The highly unusual petition
would apply to Mr. Trump's tweets, a video of Mr. Trump making
sexually predatory comments about women, his tax history,
revelations about his private charitable foundation and public
criticism of the judge.

Judge Curiel noted Mr. Trump's attorneys didn't specify what
campaign-related evidence they wanted to exclude and that he would
consider specific objections at trial.  Mr. Trump's attorneys
didn't challenge the judge further on that point, but they
objected to many other decisions, including his refusal to allow
many customer surveys and Trump's claims of a 98 percent customer
approval rating.

The lawsuit filed in 2010 on behalf of former customers says Trump
University gave seminars and classes across the country under the
guise of being an accredited school, which it wasn't, and
pressured people to spend up to $35,000 on mentorships from
Mr.Trump's "hand-picked" instructors.

The claims largely mirror another class-action complaint in San
Diego and a lawsuit in New York.

Mr. Petrocelli told reporters in May that Mr. Trump planned to
attend most, if not all, of the trial and would testify.

At the May hearing, Mr. Petrocelli asked for a trial after
Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, but the judge raised concerns about
distractions if Trump won the election.

The attorney said then that the period between the election and
swearing-in is extremely hectic for a president-elect but that it
was preferable to holding a trial during the campaign.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Foundation Won't Pay for Settlement, Atty Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
contrary to what he's done in the past, President-elect Donald
Trump will not dip into money raised by his charitable
organization -- the Trump Foundation -- to pay the $25 million
Trump University settlement he agreed to.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office requested
that Trump's attorneys confirm the money Trump agreed to pay to
settle the cases would not come from his charitable foundation.

Trump's attorney Alan Garten sent a letter dated Nov. 18 -- the
day the settlement was announced -- confirming "no part of the
funding of my clients' settlement of the New York Attorney General
action or the California actions will come from any charitable
foundation or other charitable entity."

Schneiderman's press secretary Amy Spitalnick said in an emailed
statement that the attorney general "demanded written assurance
that the Trump University settlement would not be paid for by any
charitable entity." Schneiderman wanted written confirmation
"given Mr. Trump's reported history of using his charity's money
to fund his and his businesses' legal settlements."

In September, The Washington Post reported the president-elect had
dipped into his foundation's account to settle lawsuits, to the
tune of $258,000. In many of the cases cited in the Post story,
Trump used Trump Foundation money to make a large donation to a
charity of a plaintiff's choosing as part of a settlement.

Notably, he settled a notorious case involving a giant flagpole at
his Mar-a-Lago nightclub in Palm Beach, Florida, by agreeing to
make a $100,000 donation to a veterans charity in lieu of paying
city fines. But Trump sent a check from the Trump Foundation
rather than his own account.

The Trump Foundation admitted to violating the IRS'self-dealing
ban. The charity is also being investigated by Schneiderman's
office

Trump agreed on November 18, to settle three pending lawsuits
against his now-defunct real estate school Trump University,
paying $21 million to settle two class actions in San Diego
federal court and $4 million to settle a case brought in New York
by Schneiderman. The settlement came just days before the first
case -- Low v. Trump University -- was set to go to trial in San
Diego.

Trump did not agree to any wrongdoing in settling the fraud cases
brought by former Trump University students in 2010 and 2013.

The students claimed they paid upwards of $35,000 to learn insider
real estate secrets from instructors purportedly handpicked by
Trump. The president-elect turned out to have little involvement
in the school, which his attorneys argued relied on "sales
puffery" common in advertising to capitalize on Trump's name.

The settlement will be made public and must still be approved by
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. About 7,000 former Trump
University students will recover at least half, if not all, of
what they invested to learn Trump's real estate secrets, and could
get their money in as little as a few months.

The California classes were represented by Robbins Geller
attorneys Jason Forge and Rachel Jensen, who had no comment on
Schneiderman's demand regarding the settlement money.


TRUMP UNIVESRITY: Trump Impeachment Mulled Amid Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stockman, writing for LawNewz.com, reports that
Donald Trump has pulled through with an unexpected win, and will
soon become the next President of the United States.  As this
reality sinks in across the country, Google searches for how to
impeach a President Trump are surging.  On top of that, the
hashtag #NotMyPresident is already trending on Twitter.

However, even before he was elected, one law professor was
convinced that there was already enough evidence to impeach him if
he did win.  Of course, even if there is, that's going to be a
tough task considering that the Republicans now have control of
both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Despite that,
his analysis is certainly an interesting theory to re-examine as
questions continue to arise.

University of Utah Law Professor Christopher Lewis Peterson penned
a 23-page article analyzing why it would be proper for Congress to
impeach Trump if he's elected.  He believes that Trump has engaged
in fraud and racketeering which meets the standards under Article
II of the United States Constitution which reserves impeachment
for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

"Unlike his promised crimes yet to come, the illegal acts in
Trump's high pressure wealth seminars have already occurred.
Indeed, a federal judge appointed under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution has already determined that Trump's alleged actions,
if true, constitute fraud and racketeering," Mr. Peterson wrote.
While Mr. Peterson acknowledges there would be some legal hurdles,
he contends that the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from
impeaching a President for alleged acts that happened prior to
taking office (which is the common belief).

"Congress would be well within its legal rights under the
Constitution to insist upon a President who is not a fraudster or
a racketeer as defined in its own law," Mr. Peterson wrote.
Another issue that Peterson acknowledges is that if Trump wins,
this would be seen as referendum against any kind of impeachment.
After all, the people voted him in knowing he was facing lawsuits
as it relates to Trump University.  Mr. Peterson has an answer for
that too.

"Trump appears to have lied about his role in Trump University to
students, he has throughout the election continued to misrepresent
the cases that focus on his misrepresentations," Lewis wrote.
Therefore, Mr. Peterson contends that the American public might
not have been aware of the full extent of his transgressions.

Right now, Donald Trump is facing several different lawsuits
surrounding his role at Trump University.  New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman filed a $40 million civil suit against
the University for alleged illegal business practices and fraud.
None of the cases have been resolved, and all are ongoing.  The
class action fraud trial was scheduled to begin the Monday after
Thanksgiving.  Mr. Trump has repeatedly denied his school ripped
off students.


TUMBLEWEED PIZZA: "Redus" Suit Seeks to Recoup Drivers' Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Michael Redus, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tumbleweed Pizza Partners, L.P. and Pizza
Hut of America, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00877-ALM (E.D.
Tex., November 15, 2016), alleges that Defendants' policy and
practice is to fail to reimburse its delivery drivers for
automobile costs, maintenance, and other job-related expenses,
resulting in the delivery drivers being paid less than the federal
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Tumbleweed is a Pizza Hut franchisee that operates
numerous pizza stores throughout the DFW Metroplex, operates
through pizzahut.com, and has employed hundreds of delivery
drivers in the last three years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TWITTER INC: Securities Class Action Less Likely to Succeed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that social
media giant Twitter is facing a class action lawsuit regarding its
stock prices, but a Texas securities attorney doesn't expect the
plaintiffs will have much success.

Plaintiff Doris Shenwick alleges Twitter withheld important but
adverse information about its projected growth, which affected
stock-purchasing decisions.  When reached for comment, Kristin
Binns of Twitter said, "We don't comment on pending litigation
matters, unfortunately."

Ms. Shenwick's class action complaint was filed Sept. 16 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Twitter Inc., former CEO Richard Costolo and CFO

Anthony Noto, alleging violation of the 1934 Securities Exchange
Act.  It alleges all persons or entities who purchased Twitter
common stock between Feb. 6-July 28, 2015, are eligible to be part
of the class.

A drop in monthly average users (MAUs) precipitated a loss in
revenue, the lawsuit says.

Michael Biles, a partner with King & Spalding in Austin in its
securities litigation group, doesn't find much merit to this
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs allege the most important metric is not
the MAU, but the DAU, (daily active user), which was tracked
internally but not disclosed to the public.

Mr. Biles told Legal Newsline: "Internet companies have kind of
unique metrics that they use to track demand for their products
that are new to investors.  I don't think there's any law that
requires them to disclose every single internal metric they use.


UBS: Settles Canadian Foreign Exchange Manipulation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Chown, writing for Toronto Star, reports that in a case that
could affect hundreds of thousands of retail investors in Canada,
three major international banks accused of colluding to manipulate
foreign exchange markets have settled a class action lawsuit for
almost $16 million.

As part of the settlement, Swiss bank UBS, French giant BNP-
Paribas, and Bank of America also pledged to provide information
that could help pursue more than 40 other banks alleged to have
profited from a conspiracy to push and pull foreign exchange rates
for more than a decade.

"In addition to these very substantial financial settlements that
these three settling defendants have agreed to pay, they all
agreed to provide extremely valuable co-operation which will help
the class achieve greater success against the remaining
defendants," said Robert Gain, one of the lawyers who brought the
class action on behalf of Canadian investors.

A UBS spokesperson wrote that the bank "is pleased to have
resolved the matter."  Representatives from Bank of America and
BNP-Paribas did not return requests for comment.

The lawsuit against the remaining banks, which is the first
"benchmark rigging" case in Canada, seeks $1 billion in
compensation.

The class action includes any investor who held mutual funds that
included currency contracts called "FX Instruments" between 2003
and 2013.  As these are common components of retail funds and
pension plans, the lawsuit could affect hundreds of thousands of
Canadians.

"A very large number of Canadians have been impacted by this
conduct both directly through their dealings with the banks and
indirectly by having their investments affected by the currency
manipulation," said Mr. Gain.

Traders at the banks are alleged to have participated in private
chat rooms with names like The Cartel, The Bandit's Club and The
Mafia, in order to discuss large trades that could affect exchange
rates between currencies.  By trading favours and providing
insider information, the trades could be timed to take advantages
of swings in the rates.

"The defendants created inter-bank chat rooms where they would
improperly share confidential client information and proprietary
bank trading information with the foreign exchange traders at
other banks," said Mr. Gain.  "Then they would execute a co-
ordinated trading strategy to influence foreign exchange rates."

Securities and financial regulators in the U.S., U.K. and
Switzerland have already ruled that UBS and Bank of America
manipulated foreign exchange markets and didn't properly supervise
their traders.  They were fined more than $1.7 billion (U.S.).
Along with BNP Paribas, each bank has agreed to pay more than $100
million (U.S.) to settle lawsuits in the United States. Courts in
the U.K. convicted two Barclays bankers for their roles in the
scandal.

Britain's Financial Conduct Authority found that "UBS failed to
properly control its Zurich voice trading operations . . . traders
in this part of its business were able to behave in a manner that
put UBS's interests ahead of the interests of its clients, other
market participants and the wider UK financial system."



UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Moses" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Moses, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES CO.
d/b/a UPS, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06331-DLI-VMS (E.D.N.Y.,
November 15, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant operates an international package delivery service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gernnadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1517 Voorhies Avenue, 2nd Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Phone: (718) 808-2224
     E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Yanko Files Appeal in Federal Claims Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Yanko filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Yanko v. U.S., Case No. 1:15-cv-01560-SGB, in the United
States Court of Federal Claims.

The lawsuit is brought by Michael Yanko, as an individual, and on
behalf of all other part-time GS and WG federal employees who are
or were employed by all federal agencies and who are similarly
situated.  The nature of suit is stated as "300 Civilian Pay -
Back Pay."

The appellate case is captioned as Yanko v. U.S., Case No. 17-
1177, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Entry of Appearance was due on November 22, 2016;
   -- Certificate of Interest was due on November 22, 2016;
   -- Docketing Statement is due on December 8, 2016; and
   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on January 9, 2017.

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL YANKO, as an individual, and on behalf
of all other part-time GS and WG federal employees who are or were
employed by all federal agencies and who are similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Ira M. Lechner, Esq.
          KATZ & RANZMAN, PC
          1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 92029
          Telephone: (858) 864-2258
          Facsimile: (760) 839-5755
          E-mail: iralechner@yahoo.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Fellgren" Suit Alleging Clawback
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY L. FELLGREN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INC., OPTUM, INC., and OPTUMRX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:16-
cv-03914 (D. Minn., November 15, 2016), alleges that Defendant's
practice of "clawback" resulted to consumers overpaying for their
prescription medications.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED is an American diversified managed
healthcare company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 596-4097
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail:  khriebel@locklaw.com
              kgmarttila@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Erin M. Riley, Esq.
     Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             eriley@kellerrohrback.com
             gobrist@kellerrohrback.com


US PENSION COMMITTEE: Forte Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph D. Forte filed an appeal from a District Court
order, dated September 30, 2016, in the lawsuit styled Forte v.
U.S. Pension Committee, Case No. 15-cv-4936, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
seeks damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, specifically by continuing to permit a stock
fund to be an investment option for Plan participants despite
knowing that it had become an imprudent investment.

The appellate case is captioned as Forte v. U.S. Pension
Committee, Case No. 16-3689, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph D. Forte, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com

Defendants-Appellees U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative
Committee, Investment Committee, Richard Johnson and Edgar Grass
are represented by:

          Deidre Ann Grossman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 497-8491
          E-mail: dgrossman@littler.com

               - and -

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3021
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mrumeld@proskauer.com


UTAH: Appeal in Jail Mental Health Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver will not hear a case about Utah's efforts to
stall a class action lawsuit over mental health treatment in the
state's jails.

The Standard-Examiner reports that the Utah Attorney General's
Office asked the court to consider its challenge of a ruling
certifying the Disability Law Center's suit as a class action. The
appeals court did not explain why it denied the state's petition
in a brief order on Nov. 7.

The Disability Law Center said in its suit that a persistent
backlog at Utah State Hospital means people judged to be mentally
incompetent to stand trial are kept in county jails while awaiting
treatment.

The case now returns to Salt Lake City federal court and is
expected to go to trial.


V.R.P. HOLDINGS: Faces "Roman" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Maritza Roman, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. V.R.P. HOLDINGS, LLC, and VASANT PATEL, individually,
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01992-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., November 15,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

V.R.P. HOLDINGS, LLC is located in 9105 Bay Point Drive, Orlando,
32819.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. John Gadd, Esq.
     BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: (727) 524-6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

        - and -

     Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LAW, PLLC
     PO Box 4476
     Brandon, FL 33509-4476
     Phone: (813) 343-2813
     E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


VIRGINIA: Justice Dep't Supports Class Action Against DMV
---------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
the Justice Department filed a brief on Nov. 7 supporting a class-
action lawsuit that claims Virginia suspends poor people's
driver's licenses in an "unconstitutional scheme," court documents
show.

In July, the class-action lawsuit, Stinnie et al. v. Holcomb, was
filed in U.S. District Court in Western Virginia against the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming 940,000 people in
the state have their licenses suspended for nonpayment of fines
and court costs.

The lawsuit explained the plight of four named plaintiffs,
including a 24-year-old Charlottesville man with lymphoma who
became homeless after failing to pay about $1,000 in traffic
fines.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their licenses simply
because they are too poor to pay, effectively depriving them of
reliable, lawful transportation necessary to get to and from work,
take children to school, keep medical appointments, care for ill
or disabled family members, or, paradoxically, to meet their
financial obligations to the courts," the suit says.

The Virginia suit recalled criticism of law enforcement acting as
collection agents for state and local governments in Ferguson,
Mo., as detailed in a Justice Department report after the 2014
shooting of an unarmed black teenager there.

Now, in a 21-page statement of interest filed on Nov. 7, the
Justice Department said the court should rule that those who filed
the class-action suit have a "plausible claim" that improperly
suspending licenses violates constitutional rights to due process
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

"Suspending the driver's licenses of those who fail to pay fines
or fees without inquiring into whether that failure to pay was
willful or instead the result of an inability to pay may result in
penalizing indigent individuals solely because of their poverty,"
the statement of interest said.

The Justice Department said in a news release that the statement
of interest "advances the department's robust efforts to prevent
unlawful practices that punish poverty at every stage of the
justice system and that trap vulnerable residents in cycles of
debt from court fines and fees."

Angela Ciolfi, a legal director at the Legal Aid Justice Center,
the advocacy group that filed the class-action suit, said it was
not aware the Justice Department planned to support its action,
but had kept the agency informed of its progress.

"We've always thought it was a national civil rights issue with
larger implications and are glad the Department of Justice
agrees," Ms. Ciolfi said.

Virginia's attorney general was not immediately available for
comment, but the state, in a response to the suit filed last
month, denied it unfairly suspends driver's licenses.

"Though Plaintiffs' case could appear sympathetic from a policy
perspective, it fails when viewed from a legal one," the state
wrote in a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss.

The Justice Department is not the only group that's supporting the
lawsuit.  In an amicus brief filed this month, the Virginia NAACP
said undue suspension of driver's licenses in the state unfairly
affects African Americans.


VISA INC: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd R. Seelman, Esq. -- Todd.Seelman@lewisbrisbois.com -- and
Robin Alexander, Esq. -- Robin.Alexander@lewisbrisbois.com -- of
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that this term the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments
in the consolidated cases of Visa Inc. v. Osborn and Visa Inc. v.
Stoumbous and will consider whether automated teller machine (ATM)
fee rules adopted by joint ventures amount to a price-fixing
conspiracy by Visa and MasterCard, and certain affiliated banks.
This matter provides the Court with the chance to further explain
the standard plaintiffs must overcome to allege a conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Supreme Court last addressed
the subject in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554
(2007), where the Court held that in order for a plaintiff to
plead an antitrust conspiracy sufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss, she must put forth factual allegations that plausibly
allege the existence of an anticompetitive agreement that rise
above the level of parallel conduct.

The Twombly decision has made it more difficult for antitrust
plaintiffs to prevail at the motion to dismiss stage.  If the
Court uses this opportunity to whittle Twombly back, companies can
expect to see an increase in antitrust lawsuits.  This may have a
significant impact in the class action arena because private
plaintiffs frequently bring claims alleging price-fixing
conspiracies as class actions.  Class actions brought under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act can be particularly harmful to
companies where successful private claimants are entitled to an
award of triple damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The following
is a factual and procedural summary of the action.

Factual Background of the Consolidated Action Users and operators
of independent (nonbank) ATMs brought related class actions
against Visa and MasterCard, and certain affiliated banks,
alleging rules prohibiting ATM operators from charging lower fees
to users for transactions amounted to an illegal conspiracy to fix
prices.  In the mid-1990s, states began to abolish various laws
that had prohibited ATM operators from charging access fees
directly to cardholders.  As a result, nonbanks had a financial
incentive to enter the ATM market.

These independent ATMs connect to a cardholder's bank through an
ATM network, and the most popular networks are operated by Visa
and MasterCard.  A cardholder can use any independent ATM to
access his bank account, as long as his bank card and the ATM are
linked by one common network.  Independent ATM operators rely on
two streams of revenue.  The first is the "net interchange" fee,
which is the gross interchange fee paid by the cardholder's bank
to the ATM operator, less any network services fee charged by the
ATM network.  MasterCard and Visa generally charge high network
services fees, which means that ATM operators receive low net
interchange fees.  The second source of revenue is generated from
the ATM access fees paid by the cardholder.

Visa and MasterCard impose, as a condition for ATM operators to
access their networks, a most favored customer clause called the
"Access Fee Rules."  These rules provide that no ATM operator may
charge cardholders, whose transactions are processed on Visa or
MasterCard networks, a larger access fee than that charged to any
customer whose transaction is processed on an alternative ATM
network.  Both Visa and MasterCard were owned and operated as
joint ventures by a large group of retail banks at the time that
the Access Fee Rules were adopted.  In 2008 and 2006,
respectively, the member banks relinquished direct control over
Visa and MasterCard through initial public offerings (IPOs).  The
IPOs did not alter the application of the Access Fee Rules, which
currently remain in effect.  Plaintiffs argued that these rules
illegally restrain the efficient pricing of ATM services because
they prevent independent ATM operators from incentivizing
cardholders to use cards that are less costly than either Visa or
MasterCard.

Procedural History In 2013, the D.C. District Court concluded that
the plaintiffs' respective complaints failed to allege facts
sufficient to establish Article III standing because their
allegations showed neither injury nor redressability.
Alternatively, the D.C. District Court held the plaintiffs'
respective complaints lacked adequate facts to establish concerted
activity under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Concerning the issue of standing, the D.C. Circuit found that two
distinct theories of injury were relevant on appeal.  First, the
ATM operators alleged that MasterCard and Visa, working in concert
with the member banks, maximized their own returns on each
transaction, thereby minimizing the independent ATM operators'
profit.  Second, the consumers alleged that they paid inflated
access fees when they visited ATMs.  The consumers believed that
the Access Fee Rules inhibited competition in both the network
services market and the market for ATM access fees.

The D.C. Circuit criticized the District Court's decision that the
plaintiffs theories of injury were too attenuated and speculative
because the District Court relied on cases that had been decided
on summary judgment.  The D.C. Circuit noted, "on a motion for
summary judgment by a defendant, the question is not whether the
plaintiff has asserted a plausible theory of harm, but rather
whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to conclude that its theory is correct." A motion
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, by contrast, "is not the
occasion for evaluating the empirical accuracy of an economic
theory."  The D.C. Circuit held the facts alleged by the
plaintiffs were specific, plausible, and susceptible to proof at
trial and, therefore, sufficient for standing purposes at this
stage.

Concerning the antitrust issue, on appeal the D.C. Circuit applied
the Twombly standard to evaluate if the plaintiffs' claims were
adequate to survive a motion to dismiss.  The D.C. Circuit noted
that a legally single entity violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act
when the entity is "controlled by a group of competitors and
serve[s] in essence, as a vehicle for ongoing concerted activity."
The D.C. Circuit held the plaintiffs' allegations, that a group of
retail banks fixed an element of access fee pricing through
bankcard association rules, described the sort of concerted action
necessary to make out a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The D.C. Circuit observed that membership in an association was
not enough to establish participation in a conspiracy with other
members of that association, but acknowledged that the plaintiffs
had done much more than that.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
member banks used the associations to adopt and enforce the Access
Fee Rules and that the member banks possessed governance rights in
those associations.  Accordingly in August 2015, the D.C. Circuit
vacated the District Court's decision and sent the cases back for
further proceedings.  The D.C. Circuit subsequently declined to
rehear the dispute, leading to two January petitions for Supreme
Court review.  In one petition, Visa, MasterCard, and the
affiliated banks argued that the D.C. Circuit's opinion conflicted
with decisions from the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits because
the D.C. Circuit held that a plaintiff may sufficiently plead a
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by claiming that the
members of a business association agreed to adhere to the
association's rules and possessed governance rights in the
association.  Visa and MasterCard filed a similar petition seeking
Supreme Court review of a set of related cases in which the banks
were not defendants.  Neither petition challenged the D.C.
Circuit's decision regarding the plaintiffs' Article III standing.
In June 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the two cases in
concert.

Brief for Petitioners In the merits brief filed by Visa,
MasterCard, and the affiliated banks in September 2016, the
petitioners argued that the Access Fee Rules do not constitute a
conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they were
derived as a result of the banks' founding of Visa and MasterCard
as joint ventures.  According to the petitioners, under Am.
Needle, Inc., 560 U.S. at 195 and Cooperweld Corp. v. Independence
Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 (1984), a joint venture's conduct is
concerted only where it flows from the members' pursuing separate
economic interests as separate economic actors.  Petitioners
argued that respondents' allegations that the banks adhered to
each associations' rules and possessed governance rights in the
associations were insufficient to plead concerted action under
this standard.

Briefs for Respondents In their response the ATM operators argued
that the Access Fee Rules were illegal regardless of whether the
banks adopted the rules for a separate economic purpose.  The ATM
operators encouraged the Court to evaluate whether the complaints
properly pled an agreement under Twombly.  The ATM operators
further asked the Court not to decide whether respondents'
complaints pled that petitioners engaged in concerted action
because that argument was not presented in the petitions.  The ATM
operators noted that neither petition raised the issue or even
cited Am. Needle, and answering the question would be a departure
from the Court's settled practice of deciding only the question
presented.  The ATM operators further stated that under
petitioners' legal theory, it would be difficult to see how a
joint venture could ever be held liable for any restraint, "all of
which inevitably share the feature that petitioners argue is
dispositive: that the challenged agreement benefitted Visa [or
MasterCard] to some extent."  The Supreme Court will hear a total
of one hour of oral argument concerning this matter on December 7,
2016.


VISA INC: Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of ATM Fees Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has dismissed
a case it took up earlier this year involving accusations that
Visa and MasterCard illegally fixed ATM prices.

The credit card companies wanted the justices to overturn a lower
court ruling that said the antitrust case could move forward.  The
high court agreed to hear their appeal in June.

But the justices dismissed the case on Nov. 17, saying the
companies are now making a different legal argument than the one
the Supreme Court agreed to decide.

The lawsuit filed by consumers and independent ATM operators
claims the payment processors illegally coordinated with Bank of
America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. to adopt
anticompetitive fees.

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2013, but a federal appeals
court revived it last year.


VITAL THERAPIES: Securities Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

On December 2, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and
Michael V. Swanson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital
Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS. On December
30, 2015, a substantively similar complaint was filed in the same
court, captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital Therapies,
Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS.

On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders and class members
Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.
Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar also moved to consolidate the
complaints into a single action. Sumesh Kumar and Nelson Than
withdrew their motions for appointment as lead plaintiff on
February 23, 2016, and March 3, 2016, respectively.

On May 2, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiff
Kaktrale Austin's motion  for consolidation and appointing
plaintiff Kaktrale Austin as lead plaintiff and his counsel as
lead counsel. The consolidated action was captioned In re Vital
Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-2700 JLS (NLS).
On June 1, 2016, plaintiff Kaktrale Austin filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, like the earlier complaints, was
purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vital Therapies, Inc. stock from April 17, 2014
through August 21, 2015, inclusive, and named as defendants Vital
Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson.

Also like the earlier complaints, the amended complaint alleged
that Vital Therapies, Inc. and Messrs. Winters and Swanson
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading
investors about the interconnection between the Vital Therapies
Inc. clinical trials, the independent significance of each
clinical trial, and the potential effects of the failure of one
clinical trial on the other. The amended complaint sought
certification as a class action, unspecified damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 1, 2016, Vital Therapies Inc. and Messrs. Winters and
Swanson filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, or the
Motion to Dismiss. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the
counsel for the plaintiff advised defendants' counsel that the
plaintiff had decided to dismiss the action. Accordingly, on
August 4, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss
the action. On August 9, 2016, the court dismissed the action with
prejudice as to the plaintiff.

The Company is a biotherapeutic company focused on developing a
cell-based therapy targeting the treatment of liver failure.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Second Major Dieselgate Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that a second major
Dieselgate class-action suit, filed on behalf of more than 100,000
Audi vehicle owners, says VW and Audi actively used defeat devices
on both diesel and gasoline cars and crossovers until last May.

Dieselgate just keeps lurching along.  And the news gets worse for
Volkswagen as the scandal spreads beyond turbodiesel engines into
the realm of gasoline.  According to a consumer lawsuit, the
Volkswagen plot to cheat on emissions testing by using defeat
devices extended to at least six models, using Audi's 3.0-liter
gasoline engine.

VW's Profitable Unit

Audi, Volkswagen's luxury subsidiary and its most profitable unit,
stands accused in the lawsuit of installing cheating software,
designed to beat emissions tests in two popular luxury sedans and
two popular luxury crossovers.  A class-action lawsuit, filed on
behalf of the owners of more than 100,000 vehicles, contained the
allegations.

The suit indicated that the cheatware -- software designed to
cheat -- had been installed on four models since February 2013 and
possibly earlier.  The vehicles include the:

     - A6 sedan
     - A8 sedan
     - Q5 crossover
     - A7 crossover

The latest major consumer lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8 and said
that Audi executives encouraged the used of the cheatware devices
in vehicles as recently as May, eight months after the diesel
cheating scandal became public.

Jeannine Givinan, Volkswagen's spokeswoman and Mark Clothier, Audi
spokesman, declined to comment on the complaint.

The new lawsuit jibes with a story that appeared in the German
newspaper Bild am Sonntag that brought to light the use of
scamware in not only turbodiesel engines but also gasoline
engines.  The story was the first indication of how far the plot
had spread.  The story and news of the lawsuit follow by only two
weeks Judge Charles Breyer's final approval of the first major
Dieselgate class-action lawsuit settlement.  That settlement sets
aside $10.03 billion to buy back 475,000 2.0-liter four-cylinder
turbodiesel vehicles in which the automaker had installed
emissions cheating software; $4.5 billion for environmental
mitigation and infrastructure development; $1.2 billion for dealer
compensation, and $400 million in compensation to 43 states.  VW
has the option of repairing any of the repatriated vehicles.
However, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not approved fixes for
the engines involved.

The latest class-action lawsuit comes at a time when VW is facing
a whirlwind of continuing court action that includes criminal
probes in the U.S., Germany, France, Italy, India and South Korea;
individual lawsuits from five states and hundreds of shareholder
claims.  Also, the Hans Dieter Poetsch, head of the Volkswagen AG
executive board, is under investigation by German prosecutors over
disclosure of scandal to investors.


VOLVO CARS: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Laurens" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Xavier Laurens and Khadija Laurens filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Xavier Laurens, et al. v.
Volvo Cars of North America, L, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04507, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and actual damages, including
restitution and disgorgement of the Defendants' revenues, attorney
fees and costs and other and further relief resulting from common
law fraud, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Xavier Laurens purchased the Volvo XC90 T8 twin gasoline-electric
engine vehicle, which the Defendant claims to run 25 miles on full
charge.  He alleges that his T8 only runs for 8 to 10 miles on a
full electric charge.

The appellate case is captioned as Xavier Laurens, et al. v. Volvo
Cars of North America, L, et al., Case No. 16-3829, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by November 16, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 12, 2016,
      for Khadija Laurens and Xavier Laurens.

Plaintiffs-Appellants XAVIER LAURENS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and KHADIJA LAURENS are
represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          MCLAWHORN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          407 S. Dearborn, Suite 1310
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 419-1941
          E-mail: todd@mcllegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Defendants-Appellees VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, are represented by:

          Jennifer Ilkka, Esq.
          Robert A. Roth, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Ten S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: jilkka@reedsmith.com
                  rroth@reedsmith.com


WAL-MART: Likely to Appeal $54MM Award in Drivers' Wage Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a spokesman for Wal-Mart says
the company is "likely to appeal" a jury decision awarding $54
million to truck drivers who had sued the retail giant in a wage
dispute.

Randy Hargrove said in a statement on Nov. 23 that Wal-Mart
believes its drivers are paid in compliance with California law
and often in excess of what's required.

He says Wal-Mart truckers are among the highest-paid in the
industry, earning from about $80,000 to more than $100,000 a year.

A federal jury found that the retail giant intentionally failed to
pay hundreds of California drivers the minimum wage for activities
that included inspecting and washing their trucks and for
layovers.

Mr. Hargrove says the company doesn't believe the facts support
the decision.

An attorney for Wal-Mart truck drivers in California says awarding
the drivers $54 million in damages for payment failure was a just
verdict that was a long time coming.

Attorney Butch Wagner says drivers were not paid for all the
duties they did, such as pre-and post-trip inspections and rest
breaks.

He said despite waiting eight years to get the case in front of a
juror, the seven-member panel did a "hell of a job" reaching, what
he called, the right decision.

Scott Edelman, an attorney for Wal-Mart, however, says incorrect
juror instructions brought the panel to its verdict.

The seven jurors returned the verdict in a lawsuit accusing the
company of not properly paying drivers in accordance with
California law for activities that included inspecting and washing
their trucks and for layovers.  Civil penalties will be determined
by a judge.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal of Braun/Hummel Ruling Filed in Pa. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Sam's Club was
docketed in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Nov. 7, 2016.

Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Club challenge a court ruling from the
Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in relation
to the lawsuits titled:

     -- Michelle Braun, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Sam's Club, an operating segment of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.; and

     -- Dolores Hummel, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Sam's Club, an operating segment of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Braun, M. v. Walmart Stores,
Inc., Case No. 3361-EDA-2016, in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.  According to the Superior Court's docket, the lower
court judge was Judge Idee C. Fox and the lower court order
appealed from was dated Nov. 14, 2007.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members for
all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their
full meal and rest breaks.

According to the Class Action Reporter's coverage of the case,
Braun/Hummel was commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common
Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  On October 13, 2006, a jury
awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78
million on their claims for off-the-clock work and missed rest
breaks. The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs'
meal-period claims.

On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007,
until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on
appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On
June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued
an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class,
the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties
and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys'
fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On
December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its
opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision.

On March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  On April 20, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed their response in opposition and on May 4, 2015,
the Company filed its reply brief.

On April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. arising out of the December
2014 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Michelle Braun, et al., are represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 647-6067
          Facsimile: (610) 647-7215

               - and -

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com

Defendants-Appellants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Sam's Club are
represented by:

          Maureen Murphy McBride, Esq.
          James C. Sargent, Jr., Esq.
          John J. Cunningham, IV, Esq.
          LAMB MCERLANE PC
          24 E. Market Street,
          P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381
          Telephone: (610) 701-4410
          Facsimile: (610) 692-0877
          E-mail: mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com
                  jsargent@lambmcerlane.com
                  jcunningham@lambmcerlane.com


WESTERN REFINING: Faces Class Suit by NTI Shareholder
-----------------------------------------------------
Western Refining, Inc. and Northern Tier Energy LP said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that on August 24, 2016, an alleged NTI unitholder
("Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Western, NTI, NTI GP, members of the NTI GP board of directors at
the time of the Merger, Evercore Group, L.L.C. ("Evercore"), and
MergerCo (collectively, "Defendants") (the "Merger Litigation").
The Merger Litigation appears to challenge the adequacy of
disclosures made in connection with the Merger. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Merger Litigation is in
the earliest stages of litigation. Western believes the Merger
Litigation is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against it.

The Company produces refined products at its refineries in El
Paso, Texas, Gallup, New Mexico and St. Paul Park, Minnesota.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Kress Seeks Review of Ruling in "Chambers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kelly Kress filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Steve Chambers, et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et
al., Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-JCG, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, objectors
Patrick S. Sweeney, W. Allen McDonald, Christine Knott and
Kimberly Smith, and the Defendants have filed separate appeals to
the Ninth Circuit.

The Case was brought by several people whose dishwashers started
on fire.  They alleged that the dishwashers inexplicably ignited.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Whirlpool, Sears Holdings Corporation, and Sears, Roebuck and
Company regarding certain dishwashers manufactured between October
2000 and January 2006. Whirlpool has also agreed to provide
additional benefits to owners of certain dishwashers --
manufactured between 1995 and 2010 -- that observed or experienced
smoke, flames, fumes, sparks, or electrical arcing from the
control console area/electronic control board of their dishwasher.

Additional information on the case and the settlement is available
at:

              https://www.dishwashersettlement.com/

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Chambers, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56686, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 9, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 9, 2017;

   -- Appellant Kelly Kress' opening brief is due on April 18,
      2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Susan Bathon, W. David Beal,
      George Bliss, James Cashman, Steve Chambers, Joseph
      Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Zila Koswener, Gary LeBlanc, Shirl
      Mederlet, Maureen Meneghetti, Susan Milicia, Kevin
      O'Donnell, Raymond Paolini Jr., Linda Sample, Sears
      Holdings Corporation, Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., Jackie
      Steffes, Lynn Van Der Veer, Pamela Walchli, Lyndee Walker
      and Whirlpool Corporation is due on May 18, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVE CHAMBERS, LYNN VAN DER VEER, JOSEPH
CICCHELLI, KURT HIMLER, SUSAN MILICIA, GARY LEBLANC, JAMES
CASHMAN, KEVIN O'DONNELL, GEORGE BLISS, SUSAN BATHON, MAUREEN
MENEGHETTI, W. DAVID BEAL, LINDA SAMPLE, SHIRL MEDERLET, LYNDEE
WALKER, JACKIE STEFFES, RAYMOND PAOLINI, Jr., ZILA KOSWENER, and
PAMELA WALCHLI, and for all others similarly, are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
          COHON & POLLAK, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 231-4470
          Facsimile: (310) 231-4610
          E-mail: jcohon@cohonpollak.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Fax, Esq.
          RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON, LLC
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (302) 951-0150
          E-mail: cfax@rwlls.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Telecopier: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
                  weinstein@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Telecopier: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                  tnm@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Telecopier: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: nsugnet@lchb.com

Objector-Appellant KELLY KRESS is represented by:

          Steve A. Miller, Esq.
          STEVE A. MILLER, P.C.
          1625 Larimer Street, Suite 2905
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9933
          E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Edward Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 Saint Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

          John C. Kress, Esq.
          THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4247 South Grand Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63111
          Telephone: (314) 631-3883
          E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
and SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., INC., a New York corporation, are
represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Michael Timothy Williams, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com
                  williams@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Dean Jeffrey Zipser, Esq.
          UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 679-0052
          Facsimile: (949) 679-0461
          E-mail: dzipser@umbergzipser.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Knott Seeks Review of Ruling in "Chambers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Christine Knott and Kimberly Smith filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Steve Chambers, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-JCG, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Chambers, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56666, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, objectors
Patrick S. Sweeney and W. Allen McDonald have also filed separate
appeals to the Ninth Circuit.

The Case was brought by several people whose dishwashers started
on fire.  They alleged that the dishwashers inexplicably ignited.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Whirlpool, Sears Holdings Corporation, and Sears, Roebuck and
Company regarding certain dishwashers manufactured between October
2000 and January 2006. Whirlpool has also agreed to provide
additional benefits to owners of certain dishwashers --
manufactured between 1995 and 2010 -- that observed or experienced
smoke, flames, fumes, sparks, or electrical arcing from the
control console area/electronic control board of their dishwasher.

Additional information on the case and the settlement is available
at:

              https://www.dishwashersettlement.com/

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 7, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 7, 2017;

   -- Appellants Christine Knott and Kimberly Smith's opening
      brief is due on April 17, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Susan Bathon, W. David Beal,
      George Bliss, James Cashman, Steve Chambers, Joseph
      Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Zila Koswener, Gary LeBlanc, Shirl
      Mederlet, Maureen Meneghetti, Susan Milicia, Kevin
      O'Donnell, Raymond Paolini Jr., Linda Sample, Sears
      Holdings Corporation, Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., Jackie
      Steffes, Lynn Van Der Veer, Pamela Walchli, Lyndee Walker
      and Whirlpool Corporation is due on May 17, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVE CHAMBERS, et al., for all others
similarly situated are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
          COHON & POLLAK, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 231-4470
          Facsimile: (310) 231-4610
          E-mail: jcohon@cohonpollak.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Fax, Esq.
          Rifkin Weiner Livingston, LLC
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (302) 951-0150
          E-mail: cfax@rwlls.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Telecopier: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
                  weinstein@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Telecopier: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                  tnm@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Telecopier: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: nsugnet@lchb.com

Objectors-Appellants KIMBERLY SMITH and CHRISTINE KNOTT are
represented by:

          Vaughn Michael Greenwalt, Esq.
          Timothy R. Hanigan, Esq.
          LANG, HANIGAN & CARVALHO, LLP
          21550 Oxnard Street
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-5644
          Facsimile: (818) 704-9372
          E-mail: vgreenwalt@lhcllp.com
                  trhanigan@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
and SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., INC., a New York corporation, are
represented by:

          Dean Jeffrey Zipser, Esq.
          UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 679-0052
          Facsimile: (949) 679-0461
          E-mail: dzipser@umbergzipser.com

               - and -

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          Michael Timothy Williams, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com
                  williams@wtotrial.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Chambers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Whirlpool Corporation, Sears Holdings Corporation, and
Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Steve Chambers, et al. v. Whirlpool
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:11-cv-01733-FMO-JCG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Chambers, et al. v.
Whirlpool Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56684, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, objectors
Patrick S. Sweeney, W. Allen McDonald, and Christine Knott and
Kimberly Smith have filed separate appeals to the Ninth Circuit.

The Case was brought by several people whose dishwashers started
on fire.  They alleged that the dishwashers inexplicably ignited.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Whirlpool, Sears Holdings Corporation, and Sears, Roebuck and
Company regarding certain dishwashers manufactured between October
2000 and January 2006. Whirlpool has also agreed to provide
additional benefits to owners of certain dishwashers --
manufactured between 1995 and 2010 -- that observed or experienced
smoke, flames, fumes, sparks, or electrical arcing from the
control console area/electronic control board of their dishwasher.

Additional information on the case and the settlement is available
at:

              https://www.dishwashersettlement.com/

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 9, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 9, 2017;

   -- Appellants Sears Holdings Corporation, Sears Roebuck and
      Co., Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation's opening brief is due
      on April 18, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Susan Bathon, W. David Beal,
      George Bliss, James Cashman, Steve Chambers, Joseph
      Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Zila Koswener, Gary LeBlanc, Shirl
      Mederlet, Maureen Meneghetti, Susan Milicia, Kevin
      O'Donnell, Raymond Paolini Jr., Linda Sample, Jackie
      Steffes, Lynn Van Der Veer, Pamela Walchli and Lyndee
      Walker is due on May 18, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVE CHAMBERS, LYNN VAN DER VEER, JOSEPH
CICCHELLI, KURT HIMLER, SUSAN MILICIA, GARY LEBLANC, JAMES
CASHMAN, KEVIN O'DONNELL, GEORGE BLISS, SUSAN BATHON, MAUREEN
MENEGHETTI, W. DAVID BEAL, LINDA SAMPLE, SHIRL MEDERLET, LYNDEE
WALKER, JACKIE STEFFES, RAYMOND PAOLINI, Jr., ZILA KOSWENER, and
PAMELA WALCHLI, and for all others similarly, are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
          COHON & POLLAK, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 231-4470
          Facsimile: (310) 231-4610
          E-mail: jcohon@cohonpollak.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Fax, Esq.
          RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON, LLC
          7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (302) 951-0150
          E-mail: cfax@rwlls.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          David H. Weinstein, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Telecopier: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
                  weinstein@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Steven Alan Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Telecopier: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                  tnm@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Nicole D. Sugnet, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Telecopier: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: nsugnet@lchb.com

Defendants-Appellants WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
and SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., INC., a New York corporation, are
represented by:

          Timothy S. Bishop, Esq.
          Stephen Shapiro, Esq.
          Joshua D. Yount, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8607
          E-mail: tbishop@mayerbrown.com
                  jdyount@mayerbrown.com
                  sshapiro@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Michael Timothy Williams, Esq.
          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: williams@wtotrial.com
                  bellamy@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Dean Jeffrey Zipser, Esq.
          UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 679-0052
          Facsimile: (949) 679-0461
          E-mail: dzipser@umbergzipser.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Brenner Appeals Decision to First Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacqueline Brenner filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Brenner v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Case No.
1:13-cv-10931-MLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Brenner
brought suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated alleging violations of Massachusetts General Laws
chapters 93 and 93A based upon Williams-Sonoma's collection of
customer ZIP codes, which were then used for targeted advertising
by mail.

The appellate case is captioned as Brenner v. Williams-Sonoma,
Inc., Case No. 16-2313, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form and
Appearance form is due on November 16, 2016.

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JACQUELINE BRENNER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          195 Plymouth Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee Williams-Sonoma, Inc., is represented by:

          Elizabeth S. Barcohana, Esq.
          Phillip Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Dylan John Price, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: ebarcohana@sheppardmullin.com
                  ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  dprice@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Blackman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: bblackman@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Hines, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 653-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
          E-mail: khines@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Creighton Kirkpatrick Page, Esq.
          Nicholas C. Theodorou, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd
          Boston, MA 02210-2600
          Telephone: (617) 832-3035
          Facsimile: (617) 832-7000
          E-mail: cpage@foleyhoag.com
                  ntheodorou@foleyhoag.com


WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification in the royalty litigation remains
pending.

The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty
interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint
against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, breach of implied duty to market,
violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and
bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages
and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to
production, payments and future reporting. This matter was removed
to the United States District Court for New Mexico where the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunctive relief.

"On August 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
motion for reconsideration and filed a second motion for class
certification.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims."

The Company's operations include oil, natural gas and NGL
development, production, and gas management activities primarily
located in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico and Colorado.  It
specializes in development and production from tight-sands and
shale formations in the Delaware, Williston and San Juan Basins.
It also has operations and interests in the Appalachian and Green
River Basins located in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.


YAHOO! INC: Faces 23 Suits Over Massive Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Kif Leswing, writing for Business Insider, reports that in
September, Yahoo announced that at least 500 million user account
credentials had been stolen from it in late 2014.

Yahoo offered more details on the security breach's effect on its
business in an SEC filing on Nov. 9.

Although the company says it only spent $1 million related to the
breach last quarter, it admitted that the breach may "cause users
and customers to curtail or stop using our products and services."

CEO Marissa Mayer said that she was "heartened" by Yahoo's users
showing "continued loyalty as seen in our user engagement trends"
despite the hack.

The breach could also cost the company more in the near future, as
23 lawsuits seeking class action status have been filed against
Yahoo over the breach.  However, Yahoo did not provide an estimate
of what the total cost of the breach could be, only that it could
be material.

Yahoo also said that several different government agencies were
looking into the breach, which it continues to believe was "state-
sponsored":

In addition, the Company is cooperating with federal, state, and
foreign governmental officials and agencies seeking information
and/or documents about the Security Incident and related matters,
including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, a number of State Attorneys General, and
the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York.

The revelation of the hack has come at a time when Yahoo is in the
process of selling itself to Verizon, and has thrown a potential
wrench into the $4.8 billion deal, particularly if Yahoo users get
spooked and stop using the service.

Here's what Yahoo had to say about the data breach being a risk
factor:

"The investigation into the Security Incident is ongoing and we
are still in the process of determining all of the facts and
assessing the full extent of its impact and the impact of related
government investigations and civil litigation on our results of
operations, which could be material."

"The Security Incident involved the theft of certain user account
information for at least 500 million user accounts.  The
investigation of the Security Incident is ongoing, and we are
still in the process of assessing the financial and other effects
of the Security Incident.  We may identify additional information
that was accessed or stolen, or develop a clearer understanding of
the Security Incident, evidence of such compromise in 2014 or
related issues, and other developments related to the Security
Incident could occur, which could have an adverse impact on our
business, results of operations, financial results, and
reputation.  For example, our forensic experts are currently
investigating certain evidence and activity that indicates an
intruder, believed to be the same state-sponsored actor
responsible for the Security Incident, created cookies that could
have enabled such intruder to bypass the need for a password to
access certain users' accounts or account information.  As a
result of the Security Incident, we are facing at least 23
putative consumer class action lawsuits and other lawsuits and
claims may be asserted by or on behalf of users, partners,
shareholders, or others seeking damages or other related relief,
allegedly arising out of the Security Incident.  We are also
facing investigations by a number of federal, state, and foreign
governmental officials and agencies.  These claims and
investigations may adversely affect how we operate our business,
divert the attention of management from the operation of the
business, and result in additional costs and potential fines. In
addition, the governmental agencies investigating the Security
Incident may seek to impose injunctive relief, consent decrees, or
other civil or criminal penalties which could, among other things,
materially increase our data security costs, and affect how we
operate our systems and collect and use customer and user
information.

"Our security measures may be breached as they were in the
Security Incident and user data accessed, which may cause users
and customers to curtail or stop using our products and services,
and may cause us to incur significant legal and financial
exposure.

"Our products and services involve the storage and transmission of
Yahoo's users' and customers' personal and proprietary information
in our facilities and on our equipment, networks, and corporate
systems.  Yahoo is routinely targeted by outside third parties,
including technically sophisticated and well-resourced state-
sponsored actors, attempting to access or steal our user and
customer data or otherwise compromise user accounts.  We believe
such a state-sponsored actor was responsible for the theft
involved in the Security Incident. Security breaches or other
unauthorized access or actions expose us to a risk of theft of
user data, regulatory actions, litigation, investigations,
remediation costs, damage to our reputation and brand, loss of
user and partner confidence in the security of our products and
services and resulting fees, costs, and expenses, loss of revenue,
damage to our reputation, and potential liability. Outside parties
may attempt to fraudulently induce employees, users, partners, or
customers to disclose sensitive information or take other actions
to gain access to our data or our users' or customers' data.  In
addition, hardware, software, or applications we procure from
third parties may contain defects in design or manufacture or
other problems that could unexpectedly compromise network and data
security.  In addition, our or our partners' implementation of
software may contain security vulnerabilities or may not be
implemented properly due to human error or limitations in our
systems.  Additionally, some third parties, such as our
distribution partners, service providers, vendors, and app
developers, may receive or store information provided by us or by
our users through applications that are integrated with Yahoo
properties and services.  If these third parties fail to adopt or
adhere to adequate data security practices, or in the event of a
breach of their networks, our data or our users' data may be
improperly accessed, used, or disclosed.  Security breaches or
other unauthorized access (such as the Security Incident) have
resulted in, and may in the future result in, a combination of
significant legal and financial exposure, increased remediation
and other costs, damage to our reputation, and a loss of
confidence in the security of our products, services, and networks
that could have a significantly adverse effect on our business.
We take steps to prevent unauthorized access to our corporate
systems, however, because the techniques used to obtain
unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage
systems change frequently or may be disguised or difficult to
detect, or designed to remain dormant until a triggering event, we
may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate
preventative measures.  Breaches of our security measures, such as
the Security Incident, or perceived breaches, have caused and may
in the future cause, the market perception of the effectiveness of
our security measures to be harmed and cause us to lose users and
customers."


* Class Action Rule Changes Expected to Come to Federal Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward T. Kang, Esq. -- EKang@LawKHF.com -- of Kang Haggerty &
Fetbroyt, in an article for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in August of this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee
on Rules of Civil Procedure released a preliminary draft of
proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Perhaps the most notable of the proposed amendments are those
relating to Rule 23, which governs class actions. Rule 23 has been
substantively amended four times since its adoption in 1937, and
most recently in 2003.  The proposed amendments affect the
following aspects of Rule 23: method of notice to class members,
settlement approval, objections of class members to settlement and
appeals.

Notice

The proposal includes an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2)(b) to clarify
the proper methods of notice to class members of a class certified
under Rule 23(b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate
over those pertinent to only individual class members and the
class action is superior to other forms of action). Currently,
Rule 23(c)(2)(b) requires notice by "the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances," which could plausibly be
read to permit notice through electronic or other means.  But many
courts have stated that this subsection of the rule requires
notice by first class mail.  The proposed amendment would clear up
this confusion by allowing notice to be perfected "by United
States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means."  This
proposed amendment is meant to clarify that modern methods of
communication, such as email and social media, are permissible
means of providing notice to class members.  The proposed
amendment reflects the reality that many people do not check their
U.S. mail as regularly as they used to before the advent of
electronic mail.

The proposed amendment does not require any one form of notice
over another, but merely provides courts and litigants with the
ability to weigh various options that may be more effective,
efficient, and that promote cost savings.  Which method of notice
to use under the proposed amended rule will be a fact-specific
inquiry for courts to answer while balancing considerations such
as potential costs of notice, access of class members to various
technologies and forms of communications, and the level of
attention class members are likely pay to the notice in any given
form of transmittal.

Settlement Approval
The proposed amendment makes changes to the settlement procedures
contained in Rule 23(e) and provides guidance for courts in
determining whether to approve settlement.  First, the proposed
amendment would clarify that the settlement procedures currently
contained in Rule 23(e) apply not only to certified classes, but
also to classes proposed to be certified for purposes of
settlement.

Next, the proposed amendment would require that, before notice of
a potential settlement is sent to class members pursuant to Rule
23(e)(1), the parties must provide the court with information
sufficient to determine that it is likely the class will be
certified for settlement purposes, and that the settlement will be
approved as fair and reasonable following a settlement hearing
under Rule 23(e)(2).  The Advisory Committee has noted that some
of the information that may be relevant for the parties to provide
the court to aid in the determination of whether settlement notice
is warranted includes the extent and type of benefits to be
conferred upon class members, the anticipated rate of claims,
potential outcomes and risks of litigation, the extent of
discovery completed, and the proposed handling of attorney's fees.
Courts are encouraged to direct parties to submit additional
information if it will aid in the court's preliminary
determination of whether the settlement is likely to be approved
upon a final hearing and thus notice of the potential settlement
is warranted.

Additionally, the proposed amendment provides factors for courts
to consider in evaluating a proposed settlement.  Rule 23 requires
a court to hold a hearing to determine if a proposed settlement is
"fair, reasonable, and adequate," but provides no further guidance
in making this determination.  As a result, courts have developed
their own set of factors to determine the fairness and adequacy of
a proposed settlement.  The Advisory Committee, noting that
parties often feel the need exhaustively to address a court's
stated factors even where not all factors are pertinent to the
case in question, has proposed a list of factors for courts to
consider in an effort to address these concerns, and to narrow the
focus of the parties and courts to the factors most central to a
determination under Rule 23(e)(2).
The proposed amendment contains the following factors for a court
to consider: whether the class representatives and counsel have
adequately represented the class; whether the proposed settlement
was negotiated at arm's length; the adequacy of the relief to be
provided to the class members, taking into account the costs and
risks of trial, the effectiveness of the proposed method of
distributing relief to class members, the proposed attorney's fee,
and any side agreements that have been made in connection with the
settlement; and whether the class members will be treated
equitably relative to each other.

Objections of Class Members
The current Rule 23(e)(5) allows any class member to object to a
proposed settlement.  The proposed amendment seeks several changes
to the rule.  First, the proposed amendment removes the
requirement that an objecting class member obtain court approval
to withdraw an objection.  This amendment reflects the Advisory
Committee's view that an objector ought to be free to withdraw his
objection should he conclude that it was not justified.  The
proposal, however, would require court approval if payment is to
be made to an objector or his counsel in consideration for
withdrawing an objection or dismissing an appeal of an approved
settlement.  This requirement is meant to address concerns that
class members make objections merely for personal gain, and often
at the expense of the other parties, while recognizing that
objections can often prove beneficial to a class or the court, and
thus payment to the objector or counsel may be warranted.
In an effort to deter baseless objections, the proposed amendment
further requires objectors to state whether their objection
applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the class,
or to the entire class.  The objection must also state with
specificity the grounds for the objection so as to better enable
the parties and the court to evaluate the objection.  Failure of
an objector to state the grounds of the objection with specificity
may be cause for the objection to be rejected; but the Advisory
Committee cautions courts to provide leeway to class members
(particularly where they are pro se) who may not be aware of
technical legal standards.

Appeals
Finally, the proposed amendment seeks to clarify Rule 23(f) to
provide that no appeal can be taken from an order under Rule
23(e)(1) preliminarily approving a settlement and ordering notice
to class members.

While the proposal maintains the existing 14-day window for a
party to file a petition for permission to appeal, it extends the
time frame to 45 days if any party is the United States, a U.S.
agency, or a U.S. officer or employee sued for acts or omissions
performed on the United States' behalf.  The extension of time
applies to all parties, not just the United States, and is meant
to reflect the considerations of Rules 4(i) and 12(a), as well as
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B) and 40(a)(1),
which recognize a special need on the part of the United States
for additional time to act.

Conclusion
The proposed amendments to Rule 23 provide for a number of changes
to the rule.  Some of the changes, particularly the adoption of
guidelines for determining if a settlement is "fair, reasonable,
and adequate," merely adopt practices that have been developed by
courts over the years.  Others, such as clarification that notice
to class members need not always be provided by first class mail
but can also be provided by other means such as e-mail or social
media, are meant to reflect evolving technologies and
communication standards.  Other changes, such as those relating to
standards for objecting to a proposed settlement, reflect a sharp
change in the Rule, which will likely have lasting effects.

The Advisory Committee is accepting public comments through Feb.
15, 2017, on the proposed amendments.  The committee will then
decide whether to approve a final form of the proposed amendments,
which would then be submitted to the Judicial Conference's
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, otherwise known as
the Standing Committee.  If approved by the Standing Committee,
the proposed amendments will be sent to the Judicial Conference
who will decide whether to send the proposed changes to the U.S.
Supreme Court for adoption, subject to congressional action
rejecting or modifying the amendments.  If approved, the proposed
amendments would become effective on
Dec. 1, 2018.


* Law Passed for Queensland Supreme Court Class Action Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Utz reports that on November 8 the Queensland Parliament
passed legislation that introduces a new class action procedure in
the Queensland Supreme Court, the Limitation of Actions (Child
Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

As was widely publicized at the time, the Queensland Floods Class
Action was commenced in the NSW Supreme Court as the action could
not be commenced in the Queensland Registry of the Federal Court
and the rules for representative proceedings in the Queensland
Supreme Court were considered inadequate and did not match the
class action procedure that was available in other State Supreme
Courts.

On August 16, 2016, the State Government announced the
introduction of legislation, which included amendments to the
Civil Proceedings Act 2011, which will introduce Part 13A entitled
"Representative proceedings in Supreme Court", a new
representative proceedings procedure to facilitate class action in
the Queensland Supreme Court.  The legislation was passed by the
Queensland Parliament on Nov. 8 and will commence on a date to be
fixed by proclamation which is expected to be in early 2017.

The amendments enact a statutory regime modelled on substantially
similar legislative schemes in place in the Federal Court of
Australia and the Victorian and New South Wales Supreme Courts.

What does this mean for you?

The introduction of this legislation brings Queensland into line
with other States and ensures efficiency in conducting litigation
if the most appropriate forum for the litigation is the Queensland
Supreme Court.


* New Mexico Voters Approve Ban on Unaffordable Bail Amid Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Dorn, writing for cleveland.com, reports New Mexico voters
passed a constitutional amendment on Nov. 8 that prohibits judges
from jailing people solely because they can't afford bail.

The statewide measure, approved 87 percent to 13 percent, will
scale back the use of money as a means for getting out of jail. It
also sets up a process that poor defendants can follow to seek
relief from bail, and gives judges another tool for jailing
potentially dangerous people.

The amendment allows judges to detain defendants deemed a risk to
society without the opportunity to post bail.  Under the current
system, only defendants accused of capital offenses can be held
without bail.

As New Mexico takes bail reform to a level few states have tried,
Cuyahoga County is considering reforming its bail system to be
fairer to all defendants.

Eric Holder says Maryland's bail system is unconstitutional: The
former U.S. attorney general decried what he said are
discriminatory bail practices used by judges in Maryland.  In a
letter, he urged the state's attorney general to fix the system,
The Atlantic's City Lab reports.

Mr. Holder co-authored the October letter with his colleagues at
the Covington & Burling law firm.  In it, they suggest Maryland
adopt reforms similar to the ones New Mexico enacted on Nov. 8.

Jailing people for lack of bail violates the equal protection and
due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, Mr. Holder wrote.
Maryland's bail system also fails to protect people from
potentially violent defendants who have money to pay their way
out.

Class action suit claims San Francisco, Sacramento bail systems
discriminate against poor: Federal class action lawsuits filed
against San Francisco and Sacramento by a Washington, D.C.
nonprofit claim the California cities routinely punish people
because they are poor, a violation of the constitutional guarantee
of equal protection, the American Bar Association Journal reports.

Courts in San Francisco that use bail schedules, or predetermined
lists of charges with associated bail amounts, often force poor
defendants to languish behind bars with no consideration of their
risk of skipping court or committing a new crime, the lawsuit
says.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera agrees, and said he
will not defend the city in court.

"That creates a two-tiered system: one for those with money and
another for those without," Mr. Herrera said.  "It doesn't make
anybody safer. It's not right, and it's not in keeping with our
Constitution.  It's time for it to stop.  To echo U.S. Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, we need to ensure that in the United States
there is no price tag on justice."

Ohio Revised Code requires courts to establish bail schedules for
misdemeanors, resulting in a system similar to the one used in San
Francisco and described in the lawsuit.

Connecticut bail reform advocates spoke out against what they say
is an unfair and nonsensical system of tying money to release from
jail.  They spoke before a state commission that will suggest
changes to the legislature.

Connecticut considered bail reform before, but Gov. Daniel P.
Malloy's failed to persuade lawmakers to pass legislation that
would have prohibited courts from requiring nonviolent misdemeanor
defendants pay for their release.


* Retailers Face Website Accessibility Class Action Threat
----------------------------------------------------------
Kate S. Gold, Esq. -- kate.gold@dbr.com -- Michael P. Daly, Esq. -
- michael.daly@dbr.com -- Bradley J. Andreozzi, Esq. --
bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com -- Alexis Burgess, Esq. --
alexis.burgess@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that retailers have
been the predominant targets of a recent wave of demand letters
claiming that their websites and mobile applications unlawfully
discriminate against disabled customers.  These demands come on
the heels of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) confirmation that,
in 2018, it will propose accessibility standards for private
businesses, based on the accessibility standards it has already
proposed for public entities.  Even with two months left in the
year, 2016 has already seen more single-plaintiff and class action
lawsuits actually filed against retailers on this issue than ever
before.  In the face of an increasingly active plaintiffs' bar,
any retailer with a commercial website or mobile application --
especially those operating in California, New York, or
Pennsylvania, where the majority of these suits have been filed --
should take notice and prepare accordingly.

Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with
disabilities in "places of public accommodation" -- a term
originally construed to mean brick and mortar establishments like
stores, restaurants, movie theaters, hospitals, and schools open
to the general public.  As the Internet has grown increasingly
important to everyday life and commerce, however, plaintiffs have
insisted that websites count among covered "places of public
accommodation" as well.

Courts have varied in their approach to handling this influx of
litigation.  In the Ninth Circuit (which includes California),
websites are not considered places of public accommodation unless
there is a sufficient nexus between the online goods and services
and a qualifying brick and mortar location.  For example, the
Northern District of California has held that Target's website is
a place of public accommodation because the same goods are sold
online and in its physical stores, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v.
Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 954 (N.D.Cal.2006), while
Facebook, which does not provide any of its services out of a
physical location open to the public, is not. Young v. Facebook,
Inc., 790 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1114-16 (N.D.Cal.2011).  The Third,
Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits (which include states such as
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida) have similarly
required at least a nexus to a physical location open to the
public to qualify an enterprise as a place of public
accommodation.  Meanwhile, the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits
(which include states like New York and Illinois, among others)
have concluded that non-physical enterprises, including websites,
may be places of public accommodation without this limitation.

The Department of Justice's Anticipated 2018 Regulations
The DOJ has taken the position -- which courts may consider but
are not yet required to adopt -- that commercial websites are
generally subject to Title III, regardless of a nexus to a
physical place of public accommodation.  Consistent with this
position, the DOJ issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in 2010 announcing plans to issue proposed regulations to Title
III setting standards of accessibility for public accommodations'
websites.  Those proposed regulations are widely expected to be
consistent with the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0 AA), which advocacy
organizations have described as the minimum standards for how a
website or mobile application should be coded and arranged to
ensure it is accessible to the disabled, including primarily the
visually and hearing impaired.  Indeed, subject to potential
exceptions for smaller entities or particular types of content,
the DOJ indicated this summer that it plans to adopt the WCAG 2.0
AA standards wholescale in the Title II regulations that will soon
govern public entities, and which the DOJ has confirmed will form
the framework of its proposed regulations for Title III.  The WGAG
2.0 AA standards are too numerous and complex to exhaust here, but
include, for example:

   -- Alternative text for images compatible with screen-reading
software

   -- The ability to navigate the website using a keyboard instead
of only a mouse

   -- Logical and consistent use of headings for ease of
navigation

   -- Closed captioning and sign language interpretation for audio
features

   -- Alternative audio description for video features

   -- Not using color as the only visual means of conveying
information, indicating an action, or prompting a response

   -- Text that generally has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1

   -- Limitations on flashing content which may cause seizures

Although the DOJ's proposed Title III regulations have been
delayed until 2018, this has not prevented plaintiffs from
pursuing litigation in the meantime.  To the contrary, plaintiffs'
attorneys appear to be leveraging the current uncertainty of this
landscape to seek expedited settlements, including not only
injunctive relief but also damages and attorneys' fees.

What is the Potential Exposure for Non-Compliance?
Businesses sued for website inaccessibility face significant
exposure.  Plaintiffs who prevail in a Title III suit are entitled
to injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  ADA suits are often
also accompanied by claims under applicable state law
counterparts, such as California's Unruh Act and Disabled Persons
Act that impose significant statutory damages for every violation
($4,000 per violation or actual damages in California).

Because approximately half of the lawsuits being filed on this
issue are class actions, these numbers -- to say nothing of
defense costs -- can add up quickly.  The seminal 2006 case of
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., for example, was
the first to certify a class action to enforce Title III and
related state laws against an online merchant.  In 2008, the court
approved a class settlement for $6 million and awarded over $3.7
million in attorneys' fees.

Recommended Action Steps
It may be tempting to wait for the DOJ's regulations before
working to perfect website compliance.  Getting a website up to
speed can be time-consuming, however, and may require working with
an attorney and a web-design consultant.  Online retailers and
service providers should get a head start now.

While expensive, many businesses may find that improving their
website's accessibility early will not only mitigate exposure, but
will make good business sense, as well.  Indeed, experts estimate
that nearly 220 million Americans will regularly shop and do other
business online in the coming year.  Statistically, around 20
million of those shoppers will have at least some visual or
hearing impairment.  With coding that makes their online
storefronts more accessible, retailers may ensure that their goods
and services offered online are not out of these customers' reach.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Reverses Remand of "Ripley"
-----------------------------------------------------
Facing claims in Virginia state court for failing to warn of
asbestos hazards in products manufactured for the Navy, Foster
Wheeler LLC and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation removed the case
pursuant to the federal officer removal statute to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The
district court remanded to state court, citing longstanding
precedent in the district that denies the government contractor
defense in failure to warn cases. Appellants timely appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the
remand of Deborah H. Ripley's asbestos-related lawsuit, joining
the chorus and holding that the government contractor defense is
available in failure to warn cases.  Having established this, the
Fourth Circuit leaves it to the district court to decide whether
the Appellants have presented sufficient proof to warrant removal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).

The appeals case is DEBORAH H. RIPLEY, individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Bernard W. Ripley, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, and BERNARD W. RIPLEY, Plaintiff, v. FOSTER
WHEELER LLC; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendants-
Appellants, and J. HENRY HOLLAND CORPORATION; WACO, INCORPORATED;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; SB
DECKING, INC., a/k/a Selby Battersby; AURORA PUMP, CO; IMO
INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, as successor in interest to Delaval
Pumps; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; WARREN
PUMPS, INCORPORATED; CRANE COMPANY; GRINNELL CORPORATION; THE J.R.
CLARKSON COMPANY, individually and as successor by mergers to
Kunkle Industries, Inc.; MILWAUKEE VALVE COMPANY; FLOWSERVE US,
INC., individually and as successor in interest to Rockwell Edward
Valves and Vogt Valves; SPIRAX SARCO, INC.; ARMSTRONG
INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually and as a successor to Armstrong
Machine Works, Defendants, No. 15-1918 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated November 1, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/6j8Jht from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Erik David Nadolink, WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP, Denver,
Colorado, for Appellants.

William Harty, PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C., Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Anthony B. Taddeo, Jr., David M. Sturm, Matthew D. Joss,
TADDEOSTURM PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.

Robert R. Hatten, Hugh B. McCormick, III, PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN &
DIAMONSTEIN, L.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. OK's Bid to Dismiss All Craft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in the case captioned ALL CRAFT FABRICATORS, INC., ET
AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, 1685, 155408/15 (N.Y. App. Div.), unanimously
reversed the order of the Supreme Court, New York County entered
November 24, 2015, which denied the defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were harmed by the defendant's
failure to advise them that there was asbestos in wood panels and
doors delivered to their facility for refurbishment.  The
Defendant moved to dismiss based on, among other things, the
three-year statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs'
claim, whether grounded in professional negligence or ordinary
negligence.

According to the Appellate Division, because the parties have no
contractual relationship with each other, the claim must be viewed
in terms of simple negligence, with accrual occurring within three
years of the date of injury, rather than a claim for professional
negligence, which generally accrues upon the completion of the
work at issue.  The Appellate Division rejected the defendant's
position that the date of injury was in January 2012 when the
asbestos-laden doors and panels were delivered to the facility.
Until the plaintiffs' personnel actually unsealed the wooden
crates that the doors and panels were encased in and cut into the
material, any contamination of the plaintiffs' facility had not
yet occurred, the court said.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' contention that the date of injury
was, at the earliest, May 29, 2012, exactly three years before
they commenced the action, when they first noticed what they
believed to be asbestos, is unavailing, the court held.  "[T]he
damage that [plaintiffs] are seeking to undo' is not the fact that
they discovered asbestos, but the fact of its incorporation in
their buildings," the court further held, citing MRI Broadway
Rental v United States Min. Prods. Co., 92 N.Y.2d 421, 428 [1998].
The record makes clear that, while the plaintiffs may have first
noticed asbestos on May 29, they exposed the facility to it
earlier that month, the court pointed out.

CPLR 214-c does not avail the plaintiffs, the court said.  As they
claim no additional damage to their facility since the asbestos
was introduced, it cannot be said that the injury they sustained
resulted from the latent effects of exposure to asbestos, the
court concluded.

A full-text copy of the decision dated November 3, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/oJInli from Leagle.com.

Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York (Michael T. Rogers of
counsel), for appellant.

London Fischer LLP, Bellport (John E. Sparling of counsel), for
respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blount" Remanded to Los Angeles Super. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's ex
parte motion to remand to the Los Angeles Superior Court the case
captioned ANNA BLOUNT, an individual; Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-
PALMOLIVE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08048-AB
(KS)(C.D. Calif.).

Judge Birrote held that the District Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case becase complete diversity does not
exist between all parties to the action.  While it appears that
the Plaintiff and the only remaining non-diverse defendant, Kelly-
Moore Paint Company, Inc., are in the process of settling, Kelly-
Moore has not been dismissed and its California citizenship must
be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Judge
Birrote said.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 1, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/sMYsPu from Leagle.com.

Anna Blount, Plaintiff, represented by Josiah W. Parker, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant, represented by Erin M.
Carpenter, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Keith M. Ameele, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP, Peter Michael Mularczyk, Foley and Mansfield PLLP
& Gary D. Sharp, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Pisano"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In Charles P. Pisano and Mary Ann B. Graham, individually and as
Co-Executors of the Estate of John A. PISANO, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA
LAVAL, INC., Individually and as Successor in Interest to SHARPLES
CORP., et al. Defendants, C.A. No. PC-13-5868 (R.I. Super.),
Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. seeks summary judgment in the
personal injury matter.  The Defendant argues that there are no
genuine issues of material fact, that there is insufficient
product identification, that the Decedent's affidavits offered to
defeat summary judgment contain inadmissible hearsay, and that the
Defendant is exempt from liability under Rhode Island's Statute of
Repose. The Plaintiffs object to the motion and argue that there
are genuine issues of material fact for trial, that prior to his
death the Decedent provided sufficient product identification via
his affidavits, that the affidavits meet the dying declaration
exception to the hearsay rule, and that the Defendant is not
exempt from liability under the Statute of Repose.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, finds that
genuine issues of material fact exist.  The Defendant does not
meet the definition of "materialman" under Rhode Island's Statute
of Repose and therefore, is not exempted from liability under
Section 9-29-1.  Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 2, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/26kvH4 from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Murray Tavelli, Esq., elizabethmurraytavelli@gmail.com,
Brian P. Kenney, Esq., bkenney@elslaw.com, Robert J. Sweeney,
Esq., bsweeney@elslaw.com, Donni Young, Esq., donniyoung@aol.com,
for Plaintiff, John A. Pisano.

Cassandra L. Feeney, Esq., cfeeney@adlercohen.com, American
Standard Ingersoll-Rand Company The Trane Company.

Kathryn Rogers O'Brien, Esq., krogersobrien@apslaw.com, Theodorus
Urbanski, Esq., durbanski@melicklaw.com, Atwood & Morrill.

Peter F. Mathieu, Esq., pmathieu@kkrs.com, Cleaver-Brooks Company,
Inc.

Kevin C. McCaffrey, Esq., kmccaffrey@cullenanddykman.com, Gould
Pumps, Inc. Howden Buffalo, Inc.

James J. McKenna, Esq., mclaw@choiceonemail.com, Lucent
Technologies, Inc.

Mary C. Dunn, Esq., mcd@blishcavlaw.com, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co.

Jason Caron, Esq., jcaron@pondnorth.com, Margreta Vellucci, Esq.,
mvellucci@pondnorth.com, Sears Roebuck & Co.

Holly M. Polglase, Esq., hpolglase@hermesnetburn.com, Verizon
Pennsylvania LLC.

Zachary Weisberg, Esq., marjorie.vangalen@wilsonelser.com, Warren
Pumps, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Utech" Remanded to Calif. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel L. Real of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, approved a stipulation between
defendant Caterpillar Inc. and Plaintiff Howard Utech and Joann
Utech to remand the case captioned HOWARD UTECH and JOANN UTECH,
Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-CV-04977-R-PJW (C.D. Calif.), to the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central
District, with good cause being this case is no longer subject to
its original cause of removal pursuant to U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1) by dismissed Defendant Crane Co.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 3, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/iAkLTq from Leagle.com.

Howard Utech, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz
and Luxenberg PC.

Howard Utech, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Ian Willick, Weitz
and Luxenberg PC, Carlos J.E. Guzman, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark
D. Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Robert Allen Green, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC & Tyler Robert Stock.

Joann Utech, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B. Ashrafi, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Marc Ian Willick, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Carlos
J.E. Guzman, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D. Bratt, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Robert Allen Green, Weitz and Luxenberg PC & Tyler
Robert Stock.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W. Deane,
Selman Breitman LLP, John Anthony Kaniewski, Walsworth Franklin
Bevins and McCall LLP, Michael Court Scanlon, Jr., Murrin and
Associates LLC & Sean Christopher McGah, Walsworth Franklin Bevins
and McCall LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles William
Jenkins, Law Offices of Charles W Jenkins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. continues to face a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to
businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve
products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate
to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new
ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers
or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed
to indemnify the Company against these claims. The Indemnified
Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such
sellers and new owners. These sellers and new owners have met
their obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have
any reason to believe such parties would fail to fulfill their
obligations in the future; however, one of these companies filed
for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-
related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to
the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in these matters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace To Pay $30MM To PD Trust in Feb.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. is obligated to make a payment of $30 million to
the Property Damage Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims on February
3, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2016.

W.R. Grace emerged from an asbestos-related Chapter 11 bankruptcy
on February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). Under its plan of
reorganization, all pending and future asbestos-related claims are
channeled for resolution to either a personal injury trust (the
"PI Trust") or a property damage trust (the "PD Trust"). The
trusts are the sole recourse for holders of asbestos-related
claims. The channeling injunctions issued by the bankruptcy court
prohibit holders of asbestos-related claims from asserting such
claims directly against Grace.

Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations to the PI
Trust. Grace has fixed and contingent obligations remaining to the
PD Trust. With respect to property damage claims related to
Grace's former attic insulation product installed in the U.S.
("ZAI PD Claims"), the PD Trust was funded with $34.4 million on
the Effective Date. Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30
million to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims on February 3,
2017, and has recorded a liability of $29.7 million representing
the present value of this amount in "debt payable within one year"
in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Grace is also
obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of $8
million per year to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims
during the 20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of
the Effective Date, with each such payment due only if the assets
of the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims fall below $10 million
during the preceding year. Grace has not accrued for the 10
additional payments as Grace does not currently believe they are
probable. Grace is not obligated to make additional payments to
the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims beyond the payments
described above. Grace has satisfied all of its financial
obligations with respect to Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

With respect to other asbestos property damage claims ("Other PD
Claims"), claims unresolved as of the Effective Date are to be
litigated in the bankruptcy court and any future claims are to be
litigated in a federal district court, in each case pursuant to
procedures to be approved by the bankruptcy court. To the extent
any such Other PD Claims are determined to be allowed claims, they
are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace is obligated to make
a payment to the PD Trust every six months in the amount of any
Other PD Claims allowed during the preceding six months plus
interest (if applicable) and the amount of PD Trust expenses for
the preceding six months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate
amount to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace
may be obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in
respect of the PD Obligation. Grace has accrued for those
unresolved Other PD Claims that it believes are probable and
estimable. Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or
unasserted Other PD Claims as it does not believe that payment is
probable.

All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are
secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of
Company common stock to the PD Trust in the event of default,
subject to customary anti-dilution provisions.
This summary of the commitments and contingencies related to the
Chapter 11 proceeding does not purport to be complete and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the plan of
reorganization and the exhibits and documents related thereto,
which have been filed with the SEC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Received 3,267 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 3,267
and 2,971 new asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended
September 30, 2016 and 2015, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2015 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,856 asbestos-related claims in 2015. During the nine months
ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, MLIC received approximately
3,267 and 2,971 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.

The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount
paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.
MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2016.

MetLife Inc., based in Delaware, is a global provider of life
insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Had $15MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) has $15
million accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers'
compensation proceedings at September 30, 2016, according to
Consolidated Edison Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities (CECONY and Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc.) and many other defendants, wherein a large number of
plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive
damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have
been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however,
the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims. At September 30,
2016, Con Edison and CECONY had accrued their estimated aggregate
undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years...

The estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Trial courts
have begun, and unless otherwise determined by an appellate court
may continue, to apply a different standard for determining
liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied
historically. As a result, the Companies (Consolidated Edison,
Inc. and CECONY) currently believe that there is a reasonable
possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability
accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the
amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and
former employees have claimed or are claiming workers'
compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to
asbestos. Under its current rate plans, CECONY is permitted to
defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates)
costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p5meAl

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. provides regulated
electric, gas, and steam delivery services in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $30MM for Manhattan Accident
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) has accrued
$30 million estimated liability for suits related to the 2007
Manhattan Steam Main Rupture at September 30, 2016, according to
Consolidated Edison Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the
closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately sixty suits are pending against the company seeking
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and
business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of
the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time
of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's
estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure
to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the
estimated liability accrued. At September 30, 2016, the company
has accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $30 million
and an insurance receivable of $39 million.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p5meAl

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. provides regulated
electric, gas, and steam delivery services in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $720-Mil. for Superfund Sites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) has $720
million accrued liabilities and regulatory assets related to
Superfund Sites at September 30, 2016, according to Consolidated
Edison Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

Hazardous substances, such as asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and coal tar, have been used or generated in the course of
operations of the Utilities and their predecessors and are present
at sites and in facilities and equipment they currently or
previously owned, including sites at which gas was manufactured or
stored.

The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 and similar state statutes (Superfund)
impose joint and several liability, regardless of fault, upon
generators of hazardous substances for investigation and
remediation costs (which include costs of demolition, removal,
disposal, storage, replacement, containment and monitoring) and
natural resource damages. Liability under these laws can be
material and may be imposed for contamination from past acts, even
though such past acts may have been lawful at the time they
occurred. The sites at which the Utilities have been asserted to
have liability under these laws, including their manufactured gas
plant sites and any neighboring areas to which contamination may
have migrated, are referred to herein as "Superfund Sites."

For Superfund Sites where there are other potentially responsible
parties and the Utilities are not managing the site investigation
and remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of
the amount the Utilities will need to pay to investigate and,
where determinable, discharge their related obligations. For
Superfund Sites (including the manufactured gas plant sites) for
which one of the Utilities is managing the investigation and
remediation, the accrued liability represents an estimate of the
company's share of the undiscounted cost to investigate the sites
and, for sites that have been investigated in whole or in part,
the cost to remediate the sites, if remediation is necessary and
if a reasonable estimate of such cost can be made. Remediation
costs are estimated in light of the information available,
applicable remediation standards and experience with similar
sites.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p5meAl

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. provides regulated
electric, gas, and steam delivery services in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $32MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates $32.0 million potential liability
for asbestos-related 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's subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved
legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the
ordinary course of business involving, among other things, product
liability, commercial, employment, workers' compensation,
intellectual property claims and environmental matters. The
Company establishes accruals in a manner that is consistent with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for
costs associated with such matters when liability is probable and
those costs are capable of being reasonably estimated. Although it
is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or
recovery, based upon current information, management believes the
eventual outcome of these unresolved legal actions, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.

In connection with its sale of the Company, Invensys plc has
provided the Company with indemnification against certain
contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters described below
relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various
asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the matters
described below are subject, together with indemnity obligations
relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the
purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million. The
following paragraphs summarize the most significant actions and
proceedings:

In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC was named as a potentially
responsible party, together with at least ten other companies, at
the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage County,
Illinois (the Site), by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA). Rexnord Industries' Downers Grove property is situated
within the Ellsworth Industrial Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege
there have been one or more releases or threatened releases of
chlorinated solvents and other hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants, allegedly including but not limited to a release or
threatened release on or from the Company's property, at the Site.
The relief sought by the USEPA and IEPA includes further
investigation and potential remediation of the Site and
reimbursement of USEPA's past costs. Rexnord Industries' allocated
share of past and future costs related to the Site, including for
investigation and/or remediation, could be significant. All
previously pending property damage and personal injury lawsuits
against the Company related to the Site have been settled or
dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity obligation, Invensys
continues to defend the Company in known matters related to the
Site and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys
and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of
the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-
defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation, Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims
described below, and that, with respect to these claims, such
indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar
limitations.

The following paragraph summarizes the most significant actions
and proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted
responsibility:

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.
Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation. As of September 30, 2016, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 18,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above as well
as the claims expected to be filed to be approximately $32.0
million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $23.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $32.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims,
future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein and
could be substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2016, is
approximately $244.1 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $168.1 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $32.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $244.1 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $244.1 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation is a multi-platform industrial company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Faces Exposure Claims Over Mill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Fuels Inc. faces claims related to an alleged exposure to
asbestos resulting from the operation of the White Mesa Mill,
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 November, 2012, the Company was served with an Original
Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries
resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the
Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos
products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill.

The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and
therefore does not believe it will materially affect its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013,
the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction
and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No
other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred
since that date.

Energy Fuels Inc. -- http://www.energyfuels.com/-- is a fully-
integrated producer of both uranium and vanadium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to face cases by
former and current employees and various third parties who allege
exposure to 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.

HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a
longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be
filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former
and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to
asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII
premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by
HII.

The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and
other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several
of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants.
In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the
nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, was immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. --
http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/-- designs, builds and maintains
nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends Suits at Sept. 24
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 24, 2016.

The Company is one of multiple parties to two lawsuits, both filed
in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett,
Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et
al No. 12-L-2032 and styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased,
vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374. Each lawsuit entails a claim
for damages to be determined in excess of $50 filed on behalf of
the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by the Company. Discovery in both matters is ongoing, and
tentative trial dates of February 2017 and January 2018 have been
set. The Company has denied liability, is defending the matters
vigorously and is unable to estimate its potential exposure to
loss, if any, at this time.

The Dixie Group, Inc. -- http://www.thedixiegroup.com/--
manufactures floor covering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Faces 17,076 Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation faces 17,076 pending asbestos personal injury
actions 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 is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions in the U.S. alleging
personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past
several decades.  In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and
installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

At September 30, 2016, there were 17,076 pending asbestos personal
injury actions filed against the Company.  Of those actions,
16,762 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County),
111 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and
203 were filed in courts located in other states.

The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.
At September 30, 2016, 16,743 of the actions filed in New York
Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment. The remaining 19 cases in New York County are pending
on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can
demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment.

The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available,
if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The Company believes that a substantial portion of the costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions will be paid by the Company's
insurers.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At September 30, 2016, the
Company has obtained dismissal in 27,892 cases by stipulation or
summary judgment prior to trial.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of
this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a
loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are
reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection
with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Harsco Corporation -- http://www.harsco.com/-- is a diversified,
worldwide industrial services company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Worker Loses Fight vs. Navy Supplier
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SF Gate, reported that a man who was
diagnosed with lung disease after working on nuclear submarines at
Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the 1970s has no case against the
supplier of the asbestos-filled insulation, a state appeals court
ruled Wednesday, because the Navy ordered the product despite
being aware of its dangers.

Contractors that furnish products in compliance with the standards
of a government agency, which has weighed a product's known risks
against its benefits, are protected from lawsuits for any harm the
product causes, said the First District Court of Appeal in San
Francisco.

Gary Kase, a civilian employee, worked at the Vallejo shipyard in
the early 1970s, helping to load boxes of an asbestos-laden
insulation called Unibestos onto nuclear submarines and working
alongside those who were cutting the material, installing it on
pipes and removing it.

Kase was diagnosed in 2011 with the lung disease asbestosis. His
lawyers said he settled suits against other companies involved in
the production and distribution of Unibestos. But the supplier,
Metalclad Insulation Corp., claimed immunity as a government
contractor.

In the decision, which upheld a San Francisco Superior Court
judge's ruling in Metalclad's favor, the court said the Navy first
approved Unibestos for its vessels in the late 1930s and continued
to use it until the early 1970s.

Metalclad started shipping Unibestos, manufactured by Pittsburgh
Corning Corp., to the Navy in 1968. By then, the court said, Navy
officials were aware of increasing evidence of the dangers of
asbestos.

The Navy had studied Unibestos for decades and knew it posed
"serious health risks," Justice Kathleen Banke said in the 3-0
ruling. "Yet, it nevertheless made a decision to ... continue
using this asbestos product in its naval vessels ... a
deliberative judgment call."

Kase's lawyers also argued that Unibestos could not be considered
military equipment because it was available on the commercial
market. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
has agreed with that argument and allowed suits against Metalclad
and other contractors to proceed in federal courts in California
and other Western states.

The federal ruling does not bind state courts, however. Banke said
the Navy's decision to approve Unibestos shields Metalclad, even
if the product was also available to private companies.

Kase and his wife, who also sued Metalclad, may ask the state
Supreme Court to review the ruling, said Richard Grant, a lawyer
for the couple.

"Unibestos was not designed pursuant to Navy specifications,"
Grant said. "The court was also wrong in saying the government
weighed the hazards of asbestos against its utility. There was no
proof of that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices OK Expert Opinion on Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported that
experts testifying in asbestos trials need not compare the
exposure of one defendant's products to a plaintiff's overall
exposure, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Nov. 22.

The majority reasoned that noncomparative testimony did not
violate the ban against using "any exposure" causation theories.
The ruling affirmed the Superior Court's decision, which upheld a
$994,800 jury award out of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Justice Christine L. Donohue, who wrote the majority opinion in
Rost v. Ford Motor, said plaintiff Richard Rost's expert properly
testified that Rost's exposure to the defendant's asbestos-
containing products was substantial and alone could have caused
Rost to develop mesothelioma. Having the expert quantify and
distinguish exposure to the defendant's products and compare that
to every other exposure Rost had would create a nearly impossible
hurdle for plaintiffs that doesn't exist in other tort cases,
Donohue said.

"Multiple asbestos-containing products may be substantial factors
causative of a plaintiff's mesothelioma. It is for the finder of
fact, and not the courts, to make these determinations regarding
substantial causation," Donohue said. "The dissenting justices'
concern about whether the jury could understand whether the bucket
of water was placed in a bathtub or an ocean misses the mark
entirely, since Dr. [Arthur] Frank testified that Rost's exposures
at Smith Motors [where Ford's asbestos-containing products were
used], without more, were sufficient to cause his cancer."

Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor and Justice Max Baer both issued
dissents saying that the majority's ruling diverged from precedent
outlined in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Betz v. Pneumo
Abex, in which the court declined to endorse the theory that
exposure to one fiber of asbestos is tantamount to a significant
exposure.

Steven Cooperstein of Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, who
represented Rost, said the ruling makes it clear that if an expert
believes exposure to a particular product is substantial enough,
then that expert does not need to compare that exposure to all
other potential exposures.

"It clarified an area that had been in flux in recent years,"
Cooperstein said, noting that one asbestos case he is handling has
been on hold in the Superior Court pending the outcome in Rost.
"It will really help the bar and trial judges understand what the
state of the law is right now."

Duane Morris attorney Sharon Caffrey, who tried the case for Ford
Motor Co., declined to comment.

The ruling also dealt a blow to the Philadelphia court's practice
of mandatory consolidation of asbestos trials.
When Rost was tried in 2011 it was consolidated with two other
cases pursuant to a court policy that was formally adopted as a
local rule in 2012.

According to Donohue, after Ford repeatedly requested that the
case be severed for trial, the court did not review the request
and said, "We don't sever cases." Donohue said that decision was a
mistake since the law only "permits (rather than requires)"
consolidation and puts the issue squarely within the court's
direction.

"The record in this case does not reflect that the trial court
exercised any discretion with respect to either the consolidation
of the three cases at issue, or in connection with Ford's request
to sever the Rost case from" the other two, Donohue said.
However, Donohue ultimately determined that the mistake was
harmless, and did not warrant a new trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kenya Faces Cancer Epidemic by Asbestos Roofs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Construction Review reported that Kenya is facing a
national health crisis caused by the widespread use of asbestos
sheets as a building material.

Government now spends nearly 10% of its health budget on the
treatment of asbestos-related cancers, and the figure is set to
rise, according to broadcaster KTN.

The country's National Environmental Management Authority (Nema)
says the government should take action to replace asbestos on
public roofs to avoid worsening health hazards.

"The cost of environmental damage caused by asbestos pollution,
including asbestos-related cancers, is higher than what we would
spend to replace the roofs," said Izaak Elmi, chief research
officer at Nema.

In the 2013/14 fiscal year, he said, the government was expected
to spend $33m out of its total health budget of $330m on treating
asbestos-related cancers.

Aidah Munano, the principal secretary in the ministry of housing,
told a parliamentary committee that the government was replacing
asbestos roofing.

Kenya banned the use of asbestos in 2006, but nearly all
government institutions, including educational facilities and
residential estates built in the 1950s and 1960s, have asbestos
roofs. These roofs are now ageing, and spreading the dust that
causes mesotheliomas, as well as lung and oesophageal cancers.

HTN reports that large Nairobi residential estates such as Bahati,
Kimathi and Ofafa Jericho have asbestos roofs that are used to
collect drinking water for resident.

One resident said: "Whenever it rains, we collect the rainwater,
which saves us when taps run dry. As you can see, we repaired the
roof ourselves a few years back," she added pointing to a section
of the roof patched with iron sheets.

Kenya is not unique among lower income countries in failing to
enforce the strict anti-asbestos measures taken for granted in
richer nations. Tanzania banned asbestos in 2003, but is only now
surveying its public buildings and putting in place a programme to
"expertly destroy" asbestos products.

Asbestos was widely used around the world because it was an ideal
material. It did not burn, rot or corrode, it was an excellent
thermal and acoustic insulator and it possessed elasticity and
tensile strength.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Returns Boeing Suit to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
The Boeing Co. is entitled to the military contractor defense from
liability in a suit claiming it failed to warn of the dangers of
asbestos, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on
Tuesday.

The appeals panel reversed the decision of a U.S. district court
judge in New Jersey who granted the plaintiff's motion to send the
case back to state court after Boeing removed it to federal court
under the federal officer removal statute. Boeing is entitled to
remove the case to federal court because it made the requisite
showing that it engaged in the allegedly culpable behavior at the
direction of a federal officer or agency, Third Circuit Judges
Kent Jordan, Thomas Vanaskie and Cheryl Ann Krause ruled in Papp
v. Fore-Kast Sales.

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan of the District of New Jersey
granted the plaintiff's motion to send the case back to state
court upon finding that, as a contractor, it had a "special
burden" to demonstrate that it was acting under federal government
control. Sheridan said Boeing could only show it was acting under
a federal officer by showing that was directly instructed by
federal authority to keep mum about the dangers of asbestos.

The Third Circuit said the "acting under" requirement and the
federal removal statute in general are to be "liberally construed"
to cover actions that involve efforts to "assist, or to help carry
out, the federal supervisor's duties or tasks." Boeing easily
meets the "acting under" requirement of the federal officer
removal statute because the allegations in the case concern the
company's actions while it was producing military aircraft under a
federal contract, and if not for the contract, the government
would have to produce the item on its own, the panel said.

Plaintiff Steven Papp claims in the suit that his late wife, Mary
Papp, became ill by exposure to asbestos from a Boeing aircraft.
The suit claims she suffered secondary exposure to asbestos while
laundering the clothes of her first husband, Robert Keck, who was
exposed to asbestos while working at the New Brunswick Plating Co.
in the late 1970s. While working there he sandblasted the landing
gear of C-47 World War II military cargo planes to prepare the
gear for repairs. Boeing is named as a defendant both individually
and as successor to McDonnell Douglas Corp., maker of the C-47.

The appeals court held that the case was properly removed under
the federal removal statute because the defendant met four
requirements--the defendant is a person within the meaning of the
statute; the plaintiff's claims are based on the defendant's
conduct acting under the federal government or a federal agency;
the plaintiff's claims are relating to an act by the defendant
under the color of federal office; and the defendant raises a
colorable defense to the plaintiff's claims.

Boeing asserted in its notice of removal that it was entitled to
the "military contractor defense" announced by the Supreme Court
in a 1988 case, Boyle v. United Technologies, which held that a
federal contractor could not be held liable for a state tort under
certain conditions. If Boeing is able to prove at trial by a
preponderance of the evidence the facts alleged in its notice of
removal, it will have established a prima facie defense under
Boyle and may prevail on the merits, the panel said.

Martin Gaynor III, of Manion Gaynor & Manning in Boston, who
represented Boeing, did not return a call about the case. Nor did
the plaintiff's lawyer, Jeffrey Blumstein of Szaferman, Lakind,
Blumstein & Blader in Lawrenceville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Castle Point Has High Meso Mortality Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Times reported that new figures show that six people die of
asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma every day in England and
Wales, with Castle Point having one of the highest mortality rates
for the disease.

Castle Point has the fourth highest rate of deaths from
mesothelioma, with 9.87 deaths in every 100,000 people. The
national average for England is 4.51.

"The suffering of families affected by mesothelioma demonstrates
how important it is that lessons are learned and health and safety
in the workplace is respected," said Neil Sugarman, president of
the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) a not-for-profit
campaign group which campaigns for redress for sick and dying
workers.

"Mesothelioma is a lung cancer exclusively linked to exposure to
asbestos, which could have happened 20 or even 30 years before the
disease emerges. It is always fatal, often within 18 months of
diagnosis," he explained.

"Areas such as Castle Point, which has a high rate of deaths from
mesothelioma, are no doubt seeing the effects of past industry
where workers were negligently exposed to asbestos. This is
despite the risks being well-known since as far back as the 1950s.
People went to work and came home with a death sentence because
their negligent employers exposed them to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Settles Canadian Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO) on November 18 announced that
it has entered into a definitive settlement agreement with
workers' compensation boards for each of the ten Canadian
Provinces (the "Provincial Boards") to resolve current and future
asbestos claims. The agreement resolves all claims against EnPro
and certain of its subsidiaries, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
("GST"), Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., Coltec
Industries Inc ("Coltec"), and Garlock of Canada Ltd (collectively
referred to as the "EnPro Parties"), for recovery of a portion of
amounts the Provincial Boards have paid and will pay in the future
under asbestos-injury recovery statutes in Canada. An agreement
for the resolution of these Canadian claims has been a condition
to EnPro, Coltec and GST's obligations to proceed with the March
2016 comprehensive settlement (the "Comprehensive Settlement")
reached with the court-appointed committee representing current
asbestos claimants, the court-appointed legal representative of
future asbestos claimants in GST's asbestos claims resolution
process pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court"), and
representatives for current and future asbestos claimants against
Coltec. As contemplated by the Comprehensive Settlement, GST and
Coltec have filed a modified joint plan of reorganization (the
"Joint Plan") with the Bankruptcy Court, which set December 9,
2016 as the deadline for asbestos claimants to vote on approving
the Joint Plan.

The settlement agreement provides for an aggregate cash payment to
the Provincial Boards of U.S. $20 million, payable on the fourth
anniversary of the effective date of the Joint Plan. After the
effective date of the Joint Plan, the Provincial Boards will have
the option of accelerating the payment, in which case the amount
payable would be discounted from the fourth anniversary of the
effective date of the Joint Plan to the payment date at a discount
rate of 4.5% per annum. This is consistent with the present value
estimate of approximately $17 million, before tax, that EnPro has
previously announced as the amount committed for the resolution of
these claims. In return, the Provincial Boards have separately
agreed to release EnPro, any of EnPro's affiliates and the
settlement trust to be established under the Joint Plan from any
liability for any present or future asbestos-related claims by the
Provincial Boards and to provide, among other protections, a
covenant not to sue EnPro, any of EnPro's affiliates or the
settlement trust with respect to any such claims.

The settlement agreement will not become effective unless the
Bankruptcy Court enters an order approving it or concluding that
Bankruptcy Court approval is not necessary for the EnPro Parties
to the Agreement that are not debtors under the Joint Plan to
enter into and consummate the settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement further provides that it is not binding on any of the
EnPro Parties unless and until the effective date of the Joint
Plan shall have occurred.

"We are pleased to announce the definitive agreement that we
reached with the Canadian Provincial Boards to resolve all current
and future asbestos claims against EnPro and certain subsidiaries.
This is yet another key milestone in our efforts to cleanse EnPro
and its subsidiaries of the legacy asbestos claims that have
plagued the company since its spinoff from the Goodrich
Corporation in 2002. We remain on track to reconsolidate GST into
EnPro in the third quarter of 2017 and are looking forward to
closing this chapter of EnPro's history. We are diligently
planning for EnPro's next chapter and are excited about sharing
that with our shareholders before the expected reconsolidation
next year," said Steve Macadam, President and Chief Executive
Officer.

                  About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Orders Compensation for Heacham Woman
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bishop, writing for Eastern Daily Press, reported that a 77-
year-old woman from Norfolk with asbestos-related terminal cancer
has been awarded compensation from her employers after the high
court ruled she was exposed to asbestos dust during her work as a
funeral arranger.

Winifred Goldstone -- known as Jill -- was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung, in April this
year after working for over 40 years as a funeral arranger at Eric
W Witton Funeral Services in Heacham.

In the High Court, judgment was given against her current employer
Dignity Funerals Ltd who took over the business in 1989. Mrs
Goldstone's employment was then transferred to her new employers,
which a judge ruled made them liable for the injury.

She started work at Eric W Witton as a secretary in 1975, before
she began arranging funerals at the premises on Station Road,
which also contained a workshop for a building business. Mrs
Goldstone was also required to clean up the workshop, sweeping up
dust from where materials containing asbestos were cut.

In December 2015, she was becoming breathless. In April she was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is almost exclusively caused by
exposure to asbestos.

In his written ruling delivered after a hearing Master Davison,
the presiding judge, found she was exposed to asbestos through the
fabric of the building and the activities of the carpentry
business. Dignity argued that liability for Mrs Goldstone's
mesothelioma remained with the carpentry business because that
part of the business was not transferred to it in 1989. The judge
also made clear that she was exposed to asbestos through her
employment as a funeral arranger, even if the carpentry business
had been separate.

Harminder Bains from law firm Leigh Day said: "My client has
worked for 40 years in a job she loved, she has been required
throughout that time to do much more than she was paid to do and
for her troubles was negligently exposed to asbestos."

Mrs Goldstone, formerly of Southmoor Drive has now gone to live
with one of two daughters in Buckinghamshire.

"Even though I am 77 years old, I very much enjoyed my job, it was
my life," she said. "I knew all the local families they would
often come and talk to me about funerals I had arranged for a
family member years ago. I am devastated to have to give that up."

The compensation amount will be decided at a hearing on December
15. Dignity declined to comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Has Claimed 33,000 Aussie Lives
---------------------------------------------------------
Catryna Bilyk, writing for The Mercury, reported that until the
mid-1980s, Australia was one of the highest per capita consumers
of asbestos in the world.

Recent discovery of asbestos in construction on the Royal Hobart
Hospital, and potential exposure of workers, shows how pervasive
the danger is. Due to the high use, asbestos products are in one
in three brick, fibro, weatherboard or clad homes built or
renovated before 1987.

Australia has one of the world's highest incidences of asbestos-
related disease -- 33,000 of us have lost their lives, with
another 700 deaths adding to the toll each year.

Asbestos is under floor coverings, behind wall tiles, in cement
floors, internal and external walls, ceilings, insulation, eaves,
garages, roofs, around hot water pipes, fences, garages, outdoor
toilets, and even dog kennels.

If undisturbed, it generally does not pose a health risk.

When disturbed during renovation or maintenance, asbestos fibres
can release in the air and, when inhaled, cause deadly diseases
such as lung cancer, pleural disease, asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma can be dormant for up to 50 years after
inhaling fibres, yet the average life expectancy for people with
mesothelioma is 10-12 months after diagnosis.

The aim of the National Asbestos Awareness Month campaign is to
alert Australians to the risks and how to manage them. At
www.asbestosawareness.com.au there is a 20-point safety check for
homeowners planning renovations.

Australians are encouraged to get aboard the Blue Lamington Drive
to raise awareness and funds for the Asbestos Diseases Research
Institute. More information about the Blue Lamington Drive is at
the Asbestos Awareness website or at www.bluelamington.com.

Federal Labor has a track record of dealing with this. In 2010,
the former federal Labor government established the Asbestos
Management Review. Before the review, there was no co-ordinated
national approach to managing asbestos beyond workplaces. The
review made it clear government needed to act quickly to stop
people being exposed, recommending a new national plan for
awareness, management and eradication.

After the review, Labor established the Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Agency in 2013. The Bill to establish it was
introduced by then workplace relations minister, now Opposition
Leader Bill Shorten.

Through the agency, Labor created the first National Asbestos
Exposure Register, to keep details of people who think they may
have been exposed to asbestos. It has also been responsible for
developing a comprehensive plan for asbestos safety and
eradication, the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management
and Awareness.

The plan includes six strategies for asbestos management: raising
awareness; sharing best management practice; improving
identification of asbestos and sharing of information about its
location; prioritising removal where it poses great risk;
researching the prevention of exposure and disease; and leading a
global campaign to ban it.

A global ban on mining, manufacture and use of asbestos is a
commitment outlined in Labor's National Platform, and we will keep
working towards it.

In the next sitting of Parliament, Labor will call on the Senate
to inquire into the illegal importation of asbestos.

Importation is banned, but there have been reports of suspected
contamination of more than 50 building sites across the nation as
a result of illegal imports from China.

This inquiry would be a focus for the re-established inquiry into
nonconforming building products, which was unable to be concluded
before the 2016 election.

The Abbott-Turnbull Government's response to illegal asbestos
imports has been grossly inadequate.

The independent review by Australian Border Force had narrowly
constructed terms of reference and failed to consult with affected
parties. Labor's proposed senate inquiry will be a thorough
investigation.

Asbestos Awareness Month is an opportunity to consider the role we
can play raising awareness of the dangers of asbestos, promoting
safety and supporting victims. Asbestos Free Tasmania is playing a
critical role locally to promote asbestos awareness and safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Complex Owned Charged for Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren DiSpirito, writing for CBS4, reported that an apartment
complex management company and one of its executives are facing
federal charges after renovation work caused asbestos to be
released into the air.

The owner of The Overlook at Mile High apartments in Denver,
Willmax Capital Management, Inc., and John Tom Williams, a
corporate executive, are charged with knowingly violating a
federal rule that requires owners inspect for the presence of
asbestos prior to renovating a facility and negligently releasing
asbestos into the air, putting people at risk of death or serious
injury, according to court documents. Willmax Capital Management
Inc. is based in Texas.

Richard Kornfeld, Williams' attorney, tells CBS4 his client is
"taking responsibility" and will plead guilty to the count he is
facing.

In February 2014, when health officials learned renovation work
had caused possible exposure to the hazardous material, the
residents of 94 apartment units at the complex at 14th Avenue and
Irving Streets had to be evacuated and moved into hotels. One
month earlier, Kornfeld says a subcontractor began work sanding
hallways in two of the complex's towers. The hallways had once
been carpeted, and the carpet glue contained asbestos. A resident
who was concerned about dust caused by the work contacted Denver
officials, he said.

At a hearing next month, Williams will officially enter a plea of
guilty to one federal misdemeanor charge and will be receive his
sentence six to eight weeks later. He faces up to one year in
prison and an up to $100,000 fine.

Kornfeld says both Willmax and Williams have worked hard to
remediate problems and strengthen procedures "so nothing like this
ever happens again."

In March, a class-action civil lawsuit including 43 plaintiffs,
residents of The Overlook at Mile High, against Willmax was
settled. An attorney for the plaintiffs told CBS4 the terms of the
settlement agreement are confidential. Kornfeld, who was not
involved in that case, says the company has spent nearly $1
million on remediation, reimbursing residents, and training
employees to prevent another exposure. To date, Kornfeld says no
one has been sickened as a result of the release.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Agency Taken to Court Over Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Chapman, writing for WTHR, reported that some Indiana
homeowners are taking the state to court because of emails.

Specifically, emails with portions blacked out that they claim are
covering up critical information about asbestos in their
neighborhood.

13 Investigates reveals why some say this is the latest in a
disturbing trend toward government secrecy in Indiana.

The standoff between Goshen homeowners and the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management is part of a private federal lawsuit.
While the state agency is not the target, attorneys say IDEM's
actions exposed an entire neighborhood and even high school
students to asbestos.

What's contained in those emails could uncover the reasons why.

Seven-thousand tons of asbestos-laced debris was left in piles,
blowing into the wind, exposing an entire neighborhood to cancer-
causing material.

The United States EPA says it happened all under IDEM's watch and
worse yet, a 20-year inspector within the agency missed it.

Or did he?

Federal court records obtained by 13 Investigates indicate the
evidence is found within 28 emails IDEM turned over as part of a
subpoena. The problem is the emails were redacted, with words
blocked out and names covered up.

According to the lawsuit, "The redacted and withheld information
may explain how and why IDEM incorrectly determined that no
asbestos existed at the site."

IDEM is refusing to provide the complete emails claiming it has
"deliberative-process privilege."

But attorney Tom Barnard argues the federal privilege only applies
to federal agencies -- not the state of Indiana.

"The State of Indiana seems to be retreating almost running away
from this notion of transparency," said Attorney Bill Groth.

Groth is not a part of the IDEM lawsuit, but understands the
fight. He's been trying to force Governor Mike Pence and his staff
to turn over un-redacted emails he requested.

"What are they doing behind the scenes? Citizens should have the
right to kind of pull the curtain away and see what's going on
behind it, when we as taxpayers are the ones paying their
salaries," said Groth. "There does seem to be a disturbing trend
here in Indiana toward secrecy in government, away from
transparency."

Homeowners in Goshen living near the piles of asbestos on the old
Johnson Controls site are now asking a federal judge to force IDEM
to come clean.

They want to know why Richard Swift, a convicted habitual offender
who spent 18 years in prison, was alllowed to tear down the
buildings without removing the asbestos first.

Even more troubling, the inspector who issued two reports finding
"no violations" of improper asbestos removal wrote emails claiming
just the opposite.

When another employee mentioned the handling of the cancer causing
material being criminal, the inspector replied, "Way to drop
criminal on him!! Very true...good move!!"

But in the end, the inspector said he found no asbestos and he
can't explain why he missed 7,000 tons of it.

Since our earlier reporting, the U.S. EPA has spent $1.8 million
to properly remove the piles of asbestos debris. These taxpayers
believe IDEM owes them and the U.S. EPA a complete explanation.

Groth was somewhat surprised to see a state agency now pushing
against transparency. He says the efforts have become more
aggressive during Pence's time in office

Groth's case goes before the Indiana Appeals Court on Monday.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses Dallas Firm's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
Dallas asbestos firm facing a racketeering lawsuit has given up on
its own case against John Crane Inc., with a California federal
judge dismissing the firm's suit in an order last week.

Judge Consuelo B. Marshall for the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, in her two-page order Thursday,
said the plaintiff, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, failed
to file an amended complaint.

Mark Behrens -- a partner at Washington, D.C., law firm Shook
Hardy & Bacon who is co-chair of the firm's public policy group --
said Simon Greenstone's filing in the Los Angeles federal court
was nothing but an attempt at forum-shopping.

"The court rejected it," Behrens said in an email to Legal
Newsline. "Now the firm will have to defend the RICO claim against
it in Illinois district court."

He noted, "Any appeal by the firm would be heard by a potentially
less favorable federal appellate court."

On Aug. 26, Marshall issued an order granting JCI's motion to
dismiss, dismissing without leave to amend Simon Greenstone's
claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act and dismissing with
leave to amend its breach-of-contract claim. Simon Greenstone did
not amend that claim.

On Oct. 11, the parties filed a joint request for judgment,
requesting Marshall enter judgment. She denied the request because
there was no final decision on the merits, and issued an Order to
Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.

On Nov. 2, Simon Greenstone notified her that it did not intend to
amend their complaint.

"Consistent with the Court's Order referenced above, and
Plaintiffs' formal notice of their intent not to amend, this
action is dismissed with prejudice and judgment hereby entered in
favor of Defendants," the judge concluded.

In February, the plaintiffs firm filed a breach of contract
lawsuit against JCI in Los Angeles federal court. The firm, which
has an office in that city, also asked the judge to rule that JCI
is breaching previous asbestos settlement agreements.

The complaint was filed in response to JCI's January motion that
sought approval to join a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations lawsuit against Simon Greenstone. JCI wanted to make
its own racketeering claims in addition to those already stated by
Garlock Sealing Technologies.

Ultimately, Garlock settled, and JCI filed its own lawsuits
against Simon Greenstone and Philadelphia's Shein Law Center in
June.

In its response to Marshall's Oct. 24 order to show cause, Simon
Greenstone argued the judge should not dismiss the action for
failure to obey court orders "for the straightforward reason that
Simon Greenstone has not failed to obey any of this Court's
orders."

The firm argued that the court's Aug. 26 order did not require it
to amend its complaint; it only permitted it to do so.

"The Court's August 26 Order is explicit that although the Court
was permitting Simon Greenstone to amend its complaint to re-
assert Count 3, it was not requiring it to do so," the plaintiffs
wrote in their Nov. 2 response. "The Order tells Simon Greenstone
what it must allege to sufficiently state a breach-of-contract
claim 'should [it] choose to file an amended complaint.'"

Simon Greenstone asked that the court, instead of dismissing the
action, enter a final judgment dismissing its claims in the form
set out in the proposed judgment jointly submitted by the parties
and attached to the joint request for entry of judgment.

The firm also made it clear it would not amend its complaint.

"Here, Simon Greenstone indicated to the Court its intention not
to amend its complaint to re-assert its breach-of-contract claim
by proposing to the Court, joined by JCI, that the breach-of-
contract claim be dismissed with prejudice," the plaintiffs wrote.

JCI declined to comment on Marshall's order last week.

In early June, JCI filed lawsuits against Shein Law Center, a
Philadelphia firm, and Simon Greenstone under the RICO Act. The
basis of the claims is evidence uncovered by Garlock Sealing
Technologies three years ago during its bankruptcy proceeding.

"The defendants devised and implemented a scheme to defraud JCI
and others, and to obstruct justice," the JCI complaints state.

"The defendants fabricated false asbestos 'exposure histories' for
their clients in asbestos litigation against JCI and others and
systematically concealed evidence of their clients' exposure to
other sources of asbestos."

Now, Simon Greenstone wants JCI's racketeering complaint against
it dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure
to state a claim.

"... This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Simon Greenstone
because JCI's Complaint is based solely on litigation conduct
allegedly engaged in by Simon Greenstone in lawsuits litigated out
of state, in California, Texas, and Pennsylvania," attorneys for
the firm wrote in a Sept. 7 motion, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

"For similar reasons, even if personal jurisdiction existed, this
Court would be an improper venue for JCI's suit, because, among
other reasons, the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred in the states in which the underlying litigation
occurred, and not in this district."

Last week, JCI filed its opposition to the firm's motions to
dismiss.

JCI argues in the opposition, filed in the Northern District of
Illinois Thursday, that Simon Greenstone's suggestion that the
firm has had no meaningful connection with Illinois "is not
remotely credible."

Not to mention the company's claims have been validated by other
federal courts, JCI argues.

"JCI has properly pled an actionable RICO claim," it wrote. "The
conduct at issue here by these same actors has already been
condemned as a 'startling pattern of misrepresentation' by Judge
Hodges in In re Garlock Sealing Techs., LLC. That same pattern of
misconduct by these Defendants has been found actionable under
RICO by another federal district court."

JCI argues all of the firm's motions should be denied, saying the
defendants have identified "no sound basis" for the court to
dismiss the company's complaint.

"Although Defendants seek to characterize this lawsuit as an
effort to relitigate old judgments, JCI is not trying to overturn
prior litigation results; rather, what JCI seeks is compensation
for losses suffered as a result of Defendants' pattern of fraud,"
it wrote in the 48-page opposition.

According to minutes from a September status hearing before Judge
Amy J. St. Eve, replies are due by Dec. 2.

JCI argues that both of its lawsuits -- against Simon Greenstone
and Shein -- seek "redress" for what the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
George Hodges, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, has referred to as "wide-ranging, systematic
and well-concealed fraud" against asbestos defendants such as
itself.

In 2014, Garlock used the evidence from its 2013 bankruptcy
estimation trial to file lawsuits against five firms -- Shein,
Simon Greenstone, Belluck & Fox of New York City, and Dallas firms
Waters & Kraus and Stanley-Iola.

The Garlock lawsuits alleged the five firms told different stories
about their clients' exposures to asbestos in civil lawsuits than
they did in the bankruptcy trust system.

Hodges agreed in a landmark 2014 decision.

The firms delayed the submission of their clients' claims to
trusts that were established by bankrupt former asbestos
defendants. This was done so Garlock could not assign blame for
the plaintiff's disease to the companies in the trust system, the
judge ruled.

The bankrupt companies were forced to establish trusts because
they could not afford to pay their asbestos liabilities. Asbestos
victims submit claims to trusts in a process separate from the
victims' civil lawsuits against companies that are not bankrupt.

Garlock had submitted evidence in 15 cases during a trial to
determine how much it would need to place in its trust.

"These fifteen cases are just a minute portion of the thousands
that were resolved by Garlock in the tort system," Hodges wrote.

"And they are not purported to be a random or representative
sample. But the fact that each and every one of them contains such
demonstrable misrepresentation is surprising and persuasive.

"More important is the fact that the pattern exposed in those
cases appears to have been sufficiently widespread to have a
significant impact on Garlock's settlement practices and results .
. . It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show
more extensive abuse."

Garlock's evidence, which was originally sealed but eventually
uncovered by a successful legal challenge from Legal Newsline,
showed that after several dozen asbestos defendants established
bankruptcy trusts, its own liabilities increased. The company's
average mesothelioma settlement rose from almost $10,000 in 1999
to nearly $80,000 by 2010.

Garlock's allegations were part of a strategy to limit the amount
it would need to put in the trust it is establishing to resolve
its asbestos liabilities. Hodges ruled Garlock needed to only put
$125 million in its trust, more than $1 billion less than
plaintiffs attorneys had requested.

A recent proposed settlement put a stay on Garlock's RICO
lawsuits. They apparently will be dismissed when the settlement,
which requires the establishment of a $480 million trust, is
finalized.

Before the stay, JCI sought to intervene. Now it has filed its own
complaints instead.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Studying Asbestos Liability at Sept30
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC
may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of
its acquisition of Edison Mission Energy, according to NRG's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential
liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation.

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is an integrated power company that
produces, sells and delivers energy, and energy products and
services in various power markets in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less than 500 Cases at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. faces less than 500 active and inactive cases by
claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to
asbestos, 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: "...for many years we have been and continue
to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docket
of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A
small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars. The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in
industries other than automotive. We believe, based on scientific
and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to
asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would
not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on
their work with these products. Further, many of these cases
involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases
exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries.
Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify
any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for
damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to
go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an
increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.
In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to
earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.
To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable
resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on
our future consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."

Tenneco Inc. is a producer of clean air and ride performance
products and systems for light vehicle, commercial truck, off-
highway and other vehicle applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $36MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s earnings before income taxes
includes a special charge of $36 million due to increase asbestos
and environmental reserves, 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.

Earnings before income taxes (EBIT) includes a special charge of
$65 million related to the exit of certain lines of business
within AFG's Lloyd's-based insurer, Neon, in the second quarter of
2016 and special charges of $36 million and $67 million in the
third quarter of 2016 and 2015, respectively, to increase asbestos
and environmental reserves.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JNiDTx

American Financial Group, Inc. is a holding company engaged
primarily in property and casualty insurance businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Has US$5.7MM Loss at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., has $5.7 million losses
and loss adjustment expenses due to greater than expected asbestos
cases defense costs, 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, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
three months ended September 30, 2016, was the result of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years of
$5.7 million for our asbestos exposure due to greater than
expected defense costs on our primary exposures, $3.7 million
development in our risk management lines and $2.0 million in our
other run-off lines.

"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended
September 30, 2015 was the result of net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years due to $3.2 million
unfavorable development in the primary asbestos book driven by
increasing defense costs, $2.8 million of unfavorable development
in the run-off workers compensation lines due to increasing
medical costs on older claims and the discount unwind and $1.4
million of unfavorable development in other assumed business
partially offset by net favorable reserve development in our run-
off reinsurance lines.

"Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2016 was the result of net unfavorable prior
accident year loss reserve development of $9.1 million for our
primary asbestos exposure driven by greater than expected defense
costs and the final settlement agreement with an insured, $6.0
million unfavorable development in our risk management lines and
$2.6 million in our other run-off lines. Losses and loss
adjustment expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2015
was the result of net unfavorable prior accident year loss reserve
development in our run-off workers compensation and asbestos
liability lines partially offset by net favorable reserve
development in our run-off reinsurance lines."

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an underwriter of
specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the property and
casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has 120 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces 120 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases due to alleged asbestos exposure in connection
with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its
electric generation plants prior to 1985, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced
numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement
related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for
bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985. As of September 30, 2016, there were 120 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to $32
million, and 78 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to $14 million. Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had $512MM Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves
of $512 million at September 30, 2016, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The Company states, "These reserves are based upon the minimum
amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims
through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and
incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties
inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe
they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that
might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It
is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities
in excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed
by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit
for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is $814 million in excess of the self-
insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $567
million at September 30, 2016 and $599 million at December 31,
2015. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments and
Other Assets and Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties
regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy
Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of
recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong
financial strength rating."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Expects More Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., anticipates additional asbestos claims
to be asserted against it, 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, "Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy
or its predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials. CenterPoint Energy and
its subsidiaries are from time to time named, along with numerous
others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals
who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and CenterPoint
Energy anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the
future.  Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at
this time, CenterPoint Energy does not expect these matters,
either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material
adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company.



                            *********

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  * * *