CAR_Public/161209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 246




                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Inmates' Mental Health Suit Gains Class Action Status
ALBANY ADVOCACY: Williams Wants OT Payment for Healthcare Workers
ALPHA AIR: "Quinonez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay for OT Work
ALTEGRA HEALTH: Waterfront Terrace's Placeholder Motion Tossed
AMERICAN MOTOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Mohamed" Suit

APPLE METRO: Certification of Subclasses Sought in "Marin" Suit
APPLE METRO: Certification of Subclasses Sought in "Dove" Suit
ARCELORMITTAL SA: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Dugan's Class Certification Bid Denied
ASSOS INC: Accused by Roussodimou of Withholding Earned Wages

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Nexium Class Action
AUBURN ARMATURE: New United Suit Seeks Certification of Class
AUDI AG: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
AUTO CLUB: Neibarger, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
AUTONATION INC: "Reed" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under Cal. Law

AUTOZONE INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Decertification Order
AZ COMPASSIONATE: Faces "Llewellyn" Suit in District of Arizona
B/E AEROSPACE: Trust Seeks to Enjoin Rockwell Collins Merger
BANK OF AMERICA: RICO Claims Tossed in Mortgage Reinsurance Case
BARCLAYS BANK: July 18 BARX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Court Denied Class Certification in "Deere"
CHINA FINANCE: March 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHUNG CHOU CITY: "Lao" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
COMCAST CABLE: Fails to Give Meal/Rest Periods, "Scott" Suit Says
COVENTRY HEALTH: Social Workers Class Certified in Williams Suit

CPN MECHANICAL: Faces "Dolmo" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
DICK'S SPORTING: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Ngiem"
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Pennington Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
DT HOSPITALITY: Faces "Lee" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
DW SANDERS: "Rogers" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime and Damages

DYNAMIC INTEGRATED: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Pierre" Suit Claims
EL CASTILLO: Fails to Pay OT and Minimum Wages, "Porro" Suit Says
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Faces Fraud Class Action in Portland
FIFTH STREET: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FLOWER FOODS: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Richard" Suit

FOGLE ENTERPRISES: Court Issues Prelim. Class Certification Writ
FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Braden" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeiture Law
JACKSON NATIONAL: Tredinnick Sues Over Improper Surrender Charges
LIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Bogner" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations

M + M COMMUNICATIONS: Sigui Moves to Certify Two FLSA Classes
MANUFACTURERS FINANCIAL: Faces Compressor Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MRS BPO: Faces "Schwaner" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MYLAN NV: Faces "Muchin" Suit in Calif. Over Overpriced EpiPens
NAVAJO EXPRESS: "Dianne" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.

NEWMAN'S OWN: Faces "Wong" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NOVA SCOTIA: Africville Residents' Suit Heads to Supreme Court
PMF STEEL: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, "Culajay" Suit Alleges
POMONA, CA: Lockers for Homeless Opened Following Class Action
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. of California

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Kritcher" Suit
RENOVATE AMERICA: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
RENOVATE AMERICA: "Richardson" Suit Moved to C.D. of California
RENUE SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class
RENZENBERGER INC: Court Certified Waiting Time Class in "Wright"

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Turner et, al. Seeks Certification of Class
SHK MANAGEMENT: "Tan" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
SHUTTERFLY INC: Sued by Monroy for Storing Biometric Identifiers
STATE FARM: In-House Counsel Plays Key Role in Court Ruling
SUNDAY RILEY: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in S.D. of New York

SUNRISE FAMILY: Ellis Moves Certification of Two FLSA Subclasses
TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Faces "Lejbman" Suit in S.D. of Florida
TWO JINNS INC: Parties Seek Approval of "Shelby" Class Settlement
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: K. Fellgren Sues Over Prescription Bogus Fees
VOLVO: Suit Over Sunroof Leak Still Trying to Get Certification

WALLACE RUSH: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal Filed in Pennsylvania Superior Court
WCI COMMUNITIES: Bushansky Questions Efforts to Sell to Lennar
WELLS FARGO: "Stanton" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to M.D. Fla.
WESTERN RECYCLERS: "Poullard" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA

WEX INC: Court Denies Swinter Group's Bid for Class Certification
WHOLESOME GOURMET: Faces "Valentin" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

* Class Actions Over Unpaid Overtime Gain Traction in Canada
* Options for Challenging Class Action Authorization Reduced
* Securities Class Actions on the Rise in U.S., AGCS Says


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dropped as Defendant in "Perez"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmates' Civil Rights Suits Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues Talk with FFIC on Insurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Continues to Defend A&F Suit at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westrock Co. Faces 693 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Ups Respirator Liabilities Reserve to $21M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Has $116MM Asbestos Liability at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $148M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telecom Italia Directed to Pay Asbestos Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Faces 11,700 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Faces 5,800 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has $72MM Liabilities at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont May Face Up to $83MM Injury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Faces 3,200 AM Claims at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Had $61-Mil. Liabilities at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell May Face Up to $75MM PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmates to Amend Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Evans"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Action "French"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kase"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal Order in "Kordestani"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants IDC's Bid to Dismiss "Lindsay"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Police Allowed To Pursue Sec. 205-e Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Reverses Remand Ruling in "Papp"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Loupe" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Affirms Ruling in "Rost"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport News Cases Example of Broken System
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fight for State-Funded Treatment Continues

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patterson Schools Improperly Handled Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councils Pay Out More Than GBP37,000 in Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rules for Transfer Stations Customers Changing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Dies From Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Jailed for Asbestos Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Injured Through Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers, Land Owners Have Duty to Protect
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ban Little Impact on Sweden Mesothelioma Rates
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pupils, Staff Get GBP10MM Pay for Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lansing Inmate's Asbestos Suit Can Move Ahead

ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Grants Woman Right to Sue Pipe-Maker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Priority Action for Asbestos


                            *********


ALABAMA: Inmates' Mental Health Suit Gains Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge granted class-
action status to a lawsuit filed by Alabama inmates who say the
state is failing to provide constitutionally adequate mental
health treatment.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson clears the way
for the case to go to trial next month.

Lawyers for the inmates allege that Alabama has failed to
identify, protect and treat mentally ill prisoners, leading to
suicides and complications from untreated conditions that spiral
out of control.

"This ruling is very important for all of the people languishing
within Alabama's prisons without the mental health care they
need," said Maria Morris, an attorney with the Southern Poverty
Law Center.

"They need help, but many are incapable of standing up for their
rights."

Alabama Department of Corrections spokesman Bob Horton said the
department is reviewing the decision.


ALBANY ADVOCACY: Williams Wants OT Payment for Healthcare Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHALEGRA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALBANY ADVOCACY RESOURCE CENTER, INC., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00216-LJA (M.D. Ga., November 29, 2016), is brought to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation on behalf of all
current or former home healthcare workers employed by the
Defendant from January 1, 2015, to the present.

Albany Advocacy Resource Center, Inc., is a Georgia corporation
with its principal place of business located in Albany, Georgia.
The Organization operates as a non-profit organization that
supports people with disabilities by providing care and services
for people of all ages with physical and mental disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

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


ALPHA AIR: "Quinonez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay for OT Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY QUINONEZ on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA AIR CONDITIONING, HEATING & ELECTRICAL LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01092-O (N.D. Tex., December 1, 2016),
alleges that Defendant is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
by forcing its employees to work a substantial amount of hours
without paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of
rightful compensation for their work that Alpha Air is legally
obligated to pay.

Alpha Air Conditioning Heating & Electrical LLC is an air
conditioning and heating service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101 rcowan@bpblaw.com


ALTEGRA HEALTH: Waterfront Terrace's Placeholder Motion Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Waterfront Terrace, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Altegra Health, Inc., et al., the Defendant, the Hon. Virginia M.
Kendall entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's motion to certify
a class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk December 1, 2016,
the motion hearing set for December 12, 2016 is stricken. In light
of Chapman v. First Index Inc., 796 F. 3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015) and
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), as revised
(Feb. 9, 2016), Plaintiff's placeholder class certification motion
is dismissed as moot. Plaintiff filed the premature class action
certification motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662
F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) to protect the putative class from
attempts by the Defendant to buy off the named plaintiff. Chapman
overruled Damasco to the extent that it held that Defendant's
offer of full compensation moots a litigation or otherwise ends a
case or controversy. See Chapman, 796. F.3d at 787. Accordingly,
because such premature motions are no longer necessary and are
disfavored, see, e.g., Richardson v. Bledsoe, No. 15-2876, 2016 WL
3854216, at *8 (3d Cir. July 15, 2016), the placeholder class
certification motion is dismissed as moot. Class discovery may
continue and Plaintiff must file a substantive motion for class
certification by Feb. 1, 2017.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x1GsgiP9


AMERICAN MOTOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Mohamed" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RAY MOHAMED, individually and,
on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MOTOR COMPANY,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23352-MGC (S.D. Fla.), seeks
certification of this class:

     All persons in the United States (i) who received a text
     message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii) from Off
     Lease Only, Inc. or an agent of the same (iv) sent using an
     automatic telephone dialing system (v) from a period of four
     (4) years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint,
     September 4, 2011, to the date of class certification.

The case is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BTxy5O5X

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


APPLE METRO: Certification of Subclasses Sought in "Marin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARLOS MARIN, KENNY LEBRON, and MARTINA
HANISCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE METRO, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-05274-ENV-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an Order:

   (1) granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
       with respect to the Moving Plaintiffs; and

   (2) granting Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Certification as
       to the proposed subclasses.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l8hIxRxy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ariel Y. Graff, Esq.
          Robert W. Ottinger, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571 2000
          E-mail: ari@ottingerlaw.com
          robert@ottingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          P.C. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867 5000
          E-mail: mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


APPLE METRO: Certification of Subclasses Sought in "Dove" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SHAUNTA DOVE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE METRO, INC., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-01417-ENV-CLP (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an Order:

   (1) granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
       with respect to the Moving Plaintiffs; and

   (2) granting Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Certification as
       to the proposed subclasses.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MAfAQu1q

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ariel Y. Graff, Esq.
          Robert W. Ottinger, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571 2000
          E-mail: ari@ottingerlaw.com
                  robert@ottingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          P.C. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867 5000
          E-mail: mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ARCELORMITTAL SA: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought Steel Products from one or more Defendants between
April 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, you may be affected by a
Class Action Settlement.

What is the Settlement about?

Eight steel manufacturers, ArcelorMittal S.A. and ArcelorMittal
USA, LLC (together "ArcelorMittal"), Nucor Corporation ("Nucor"),
United States Steel Corporation ("U.S. Steel"), Gerdau Ameristeel
Corporation ("Gerdau"), AK Steel Holding Corporation ("AK Steel"),
Steel Dynamics, Inc. ("Steel Dynamics"), SSAB Swedish Steel
Corporation ("SSAB") and Commercial Metals Company ("CMC")
(collectively, "Defendants") were sued by several businesses
("Plaintiffs") who allege that the Defendants violated the U.S.
antitrust laws by conspiring to slow down their furnace
production, thus restricting their output of raw steel and causing
artificially higher prices for certain Steel Products sold for
delivery in the United States between April 1, 2005 and December
31, 2007.  There has not yet been any determination of the merits
of the case.

Settlements have been reached with Nucor ($23.4 million), Steel
Dynamics ($4.6 million) and SSAB ($2 million), which have agreed
to pay a total of $30 million into a Settlement Fund.  This is in
addition to $163.9 million in settlements that were achieved with
CMC, AK Steel, Gerdau, ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel, which were
approved by the Court in 2014.  Settlements in the case now total
$193.9 million.

Nucor, Steel Dynamics and SSAB deny the allegations against them,
deny that they have done anything wrong, and have asserted a
number of defenses.

Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have agreed to settle to avoid
the costs, distraction, and uncertainty of continued litigation.

Who is a Class Member?

You are a Class Member if you Purchased certain Steel Products
directly from any of the Defendants or their subsidiaries or
controlled affiliates at any time between April 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 for delivery in the United States.

In general, "Steel Products" include carbon steel slabs, plates,
sheet and coil products, galvanized and other coated sheet
products; billets, blooms, rebar, merchant bar, beams and other
structural shapes; and other steel products derived from raw
carbon steel and sold by Defendants.  The terms "Steel Products"
and "Purchased" are more specifically defined in the full Notice
and the Settlement Agreements.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a Class Member and do not opt out, you will be eligible
to file a claim at a later date to receive money from the
Settlements.

What are my rights?

If you are a class Member and do not opt out, you will release
certain legal rights against Nucor, Steel Dynamics and SSAB, as
set forth in the full Notice and in the Settlement Agreements.  If
you do not want to take part in one or more of the Nucor, Steel
Dynamics and/or SSAB Settlements, you have the right to opt out.
To opt out, you must do so by January 12, 2017.

Class Members have the right to object to the Settlements.  If you
want to object, you must do so by January 12, 2017.  Information
on how to opt out or object is contained in the full Notice and at
www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com.  You may speak to your own
attorney at your expense for help.

When is the Approval Hearing?

A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the Nucor, Steel
Dynamics and SSAB Settlements is scheduled to be held in Courtroom
1719, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, on February 16, 2017, at 12:30
p.m.  At that time, the Court will also consider Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees reimbursement of litigation
expenses, and incentive awards to Class Representatives, as well
as a proposed Plan of Allocation and Distribution.  You may appear
at the hearing, but your attendance is not required.  The date and
location for this hearing may be changed on further Order of the
Court.

This is a Summary, where can I get more information?

You can get complete settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice and the Settlement Agreements, by visiting
www.SteelAntitrustSettlement.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Dugan's Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Charissa Dugan, the Plaintiff, v. Ashley
Furniture Industries, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-
cv-01125-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Percy Anderson denied
Plaintiff's Motion for class certification of:

   "all current and former hourly, non-exempt sales consultants
   who were employed by Defendant in the State of California
   during the period of May 11, 2012 through resolution of this
   action, and who were not reimbursed for personal cellular
   telephone expenses and losses incurred in the discharge of
   their duties".

The Court said, "Given that Plaintiff has failed to meet her
burden to demonstrate that a common question of law or fact
exists, the Court concludes that the commonality requirement is
not met. In light of the lack of commonality, Plaintiff has not
satisfied Rule 23(a)".

In reaching its decision, the Court did not rely on any evidence
that was objected to; therefore, Plaintiff's and Defendant's
evidentiary objections are denied as moot. In addition,
Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice and Ex Parte Application
for Leave to File a Sur Reply are denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yq157n7m


ASSOS INC: Accused by Roussodimou of Withholding Earned Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Artemis Roussodimou, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Assos, Inc. d/b/a Aegean Cafe, Stavros Kokkosis a/k/a
"Steve", and Themis Konstantatos a/k/a "Timmy", jointly and
severally, Case No. 2:16-cv-06609 (E.D.N.Y., November 30, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants wrongfully withheld the Plaintiff's
lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation, and
misappropriated tips.

Assos, Inc., doing business as Aegean Cafe, is a New York domestic
corporation with a principal place of business located in
Sayville, New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
principals, authorized operators, managers, shareholders or agents
of the Company.  The Company owns and operates the restaurant
"Aegean Cafe" in Sayville.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yesy Sanchez, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          35-10 Broadway, Suite 201
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (718) 777-0400
          Facsimile: (718) 777-0599
          E-mail: yesy@pnlawyers.com


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Nexium Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Monitor reports that a U.S. appeals court upheld the win
for AstraZeneca PLC and Ranbaxy Laboratories in a lawsuit where
drug wholesalers and health plans had accused them of striking an
illegal deal to delay the launch of a generic version of
AstraZeneca's heartburn drug, Nexium.  The 2012 class action
lawsuit accused AstraZeneca of paying Ranbaxy $700 million to
delay launching a generic version of Nexium, and to abandon its
challenges to AstraZeneca patents, which had expired in 2014.


AUBURN ARMATURE: New United Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NEW UNITED, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. AUBURN ARMATURE, INC., a New
York corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-10983 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify
a class of:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
   filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
   messages of material advertising the commercial availability
   or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf
   of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior
   express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display
   a proper opt-out notice".

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff as the
class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUDI AG: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audi AG. The case is
captioned Ernest Alvarez Individually, and On Behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Audi AG and Audi
of America, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06951-SK (N.D.
Cal., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge
Sallie Kim.

Audi is a German automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers,
produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles. Audi oversees
worldwide operations from its headquarters in Ingolstadt, Bavaria,
Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          Kara M Wolke, Esq.
          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com
                  mgreenstone@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398 8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com


AUTO CLUB: Neibarger, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER NEIBARGER, and MELINDA KONDRACKI,
individually and behalf of others Hon. Paul L. Maloney similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, A Michigan
Corporation, and AUTO CLUB SERVICES, INC., A Michigan Corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01196-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      overtime wages defined as:

      "all current or former Call Receivers, Product Specialists,
      Call Managers, Customer Service Representatives and Quality
      Assurance Specialists who worked for Defendants at any time
      in the three years prior to the filing of this action";

   b. compelling Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names,
      all known addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers,
      as well as dates and location(s) of employment of the
      potential Collective members;

   c. authorizing a notice to the Collective members with a
      90-day opt-in period; and

   d. appointing Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Avanti Law Group,
      PLLC as interim class counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant to
recover damages for Defendants' willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs, and those similarly
situated, were subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of
failing to pay overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a
workweek.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bi7M197u

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
          Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 746 4001
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  npioch@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Alvarez, Esq.
          Victoria L. Smalley, Esq.
          Avanti Law Group, PLLC
          600 28th Street SW
          Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257 6808
          Facsimile: (616) 257 8501
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
                  vsmalley@avantilaw.com


AUTONATION INC: "Reed" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under Cal. Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER LEON REED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AUTONATION, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclus1ve, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-08916 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2016), seeks to recover,
among other things, unpaid compensation arising from DEFENDANTS'
alleged failure to provide employees meal and rest periods as
required under California law, and unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wage, and unreimbursed business expenses.

AUTONATION, INC. -- https://www.autonation.com/ -- is an
automotive retailer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Launa AdOlph, Esq.
     Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans A venue, Smte 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901
     E-mail: mmatem@maternlawgroup.com
            ladolph@maternlawgroup.com
            ksabourian@matemlawgroup.com


AUTOZONE INC: Court Refuses to Reconsider Decertification Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles R. Breyer denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order granting decertification in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: AutoZone, Inc., Wage and
Hour Employment Practices Litigation, MDL No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB
(N.D. Cal.).

The litigation is a wage and hour case involving California
AutoZone stores.  On December 21, 2012, the Court certified a rest
break class defined as: "All non-exempt or hourly paid employees
who have been employed at Defendant's retail stores in the State
of California at any time on or after July 29, 2005 until the date
of certification."  On August 10, 2016, the Court decertified the
rest break class, holding in light of the evidence that came to
light since certification that "Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate predominance or manageability/superiority."

A copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration is
available at no charge at https://goo.gl/lj3jPj

Plaintiff Jimmy Ellison is represented by:

          Bevin Elaine Allen Pike, Esq.
          Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Daniela Saspe, Esq.
          Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq.
          Katherine Ward Kehr, Esq.
          Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
          Raul Perez, Esq.
          Rebecca Labat, Esq.
          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Stan Karas, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  daniela.saspe@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com

               - and -

          Marc Primo, Esq.
          Monica Balderrama, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: MarcPrimo@InitiativeLegal.com
                  MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com

Plaintiffs Jimmy Ellison, Silvia Escobar, Haydee Escalante,
Lynnetta Ellison, Mark Sanchez, Drake Price and Marsha Doland are
represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com

Plaintiff Silvia Escobar is represented by:

          Aldon Louis Bolanos, Esq.
          BOLANOS FIRM
          700 E St., Suite 1000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-1209
          Telephone: (916) 446-2800
          Facsimile: (916) 446-2828
          E-mail: aldon@aldonlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com

Plaintiff Haydee Escalante is represented by:

          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: lander@kbarnes.com
                  Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Giuseppe Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Christine Carney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393-0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
          E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com
                  jcarney@antonellilaw.com

Plaintiff Mark Sanchez is represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Christopher Richard Pantel, Esq.
          Joseph Steven Hoff, Esq.
          Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
          E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com
                  Christopher@yablonovichlaw.com
                  joseph@yablonovichlaw.com
                  Patrick@Yablonovichlaw.com

Plaintiff Drake Price is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Christina Marie Nordsten, Esq.
          David Covington Garrett, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com
                  cnordsten@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

Plaintiff Jesus Lozacruz is represented by:

          Christopher Richard Pantel, Esq.
          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
          E-mail: Christopher@yablonovichlaw.com
                  mark@yablonovichlaw.com
                  joseph@yablonovichlaw.com
                  Patrick@Yablonovichlaw.com

Defendant AutoZone, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
          Alison Jacquelyn Cubre, Esq.
          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com
                  acubre@littler.com
                  giskander@littler.com
                  jmann@littler.com

               - and -

          Amy C. Hirsh, Esq.
          Michael A. Hoffman, III, Esq.
          Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          Facsimile: (415) 520-0446
          E-mail: ahirsh@arenahoffman.com
                  mhoffman@arenahoffman.com
                  rarena@arenahoffman.com

Defendant AutoZoners LLC is represented by:

          Amy C. Hirsh, Esq.
          Kathryn M. Weeks, Esq.
          Michael A. Hoffman, III, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          Facsimile: (415) 520-0446
          E-mail: ahirsh@arenahoffman.com
                  kweeks@arenahoffman.com
                  mhoffman@arenahoffman.com


AZ COMPASSIONATE: Faces "Llewellyn" Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AZ Compassionate
Care Incorporated. The case is styled Jason Llewellyn on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AZ
Compassionate Care Incorporated doing business as TruMed; and
Unknown Parties named as Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04181-DGC (D. Ariz., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge David G Campbell.

TruMed offers high quality disposable medical exam gloves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Wendell Williams, Esq.
          DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC
          40 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 425
          Tempe, AZ 85281
          Telephone: (480) 733 6800
          Facsimile: (480) 733 3748
          E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com


B/E AEROSPACE: Trust Seeks to Enjoin Rockwell Collins Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY LIVING TRUST, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. B/E
AEROSPACE, INC., AMIN J. KHOURY, JAMES F. ALBAUGH, DAVID J.
ANDERSON, RICHARD G. HAMERMESH, WERNER LIEBERHERR, JONATHAN M.
SCHOFIELD, MARY M. VANDEWEGHE, JOHN T. WHATES, ROCKWELL COLLINS,
INC., and QUARTERBACK MERGER SUB CORP., Defendants, Case No.
12957- (Del. Court of Chancery, December 1, 2016), alleges that
the Registration Statement in the acquisition of B/E Aerospace,
Inc. by Rockwell Collins, Inc. omits material information
regarding, among other things, potential conflicts of interest of
B/E Aerospace's officers and directors and the Company's financial
projections.  The suit thus, seeks to enjoin the merger.

B/E AEROSPACE, INC. -- http://beaerospace.com/-- is a distributor
of aerospace fasteners and consumables for the commercial business
jet and military markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 588-5516

        - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310


BANK OF AMERICA: RICO Claims Tossed in Mortgage Reinsurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a Pennsylvania federal judge has awarded
Bank of America Corp. and its captive reinsurer summary judgment
on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims in a
mortgage reinsurance kickback action, ruling that the claims are
time-barred.

In a Nov. 22 order, Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that the
plaintiffs had sufficient information of possible wrongdoing to
place them on "inquiry notice" or to excite "storm warnings" of
culpable activity.

William Weiss, Robert Lessman, Ann Harrell and Eddie Harrell
asserted class action claims against Bank of America Corp. (BAC).


BARCLAYS BANK: July 18 BARX Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP and Korein Tillery LLC regarding Axiom Investment
Advisors, LLC, by and through its Trustee, Gildor Management LLC
v. Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AXIOM INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, by and through its Trustee, Gildor
Management LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARCLAYS BANK PLC and BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-09323 (LGS)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If you Submitted a Trade or Trade Instruction for an FX Instrument
to Barclays over BARX Between June 1, 2008 and April 21, 2016, You
May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement.

"FX Instrument" means FX transactions in any deliverable or non-
deliverable currency, including but not limited to FX spot,
outright forwards, futures, non-deliverable forwards, swaps,
options, and strategies, and any other instrument the trading of
which is related in any way to FX rates.

This notice is to alert you to a proposed settlement reached with
defendants Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.
(collectively, "Barclays") in a class action.  The lawsuit alleges
that Barclays used an automated function called "Last Look" that
delayed Barclays' response to trades or trade instructions for FX
Instruments submitted over BARX (whether submitted on BARX
directly or via an electronic communications network ("ECN") or
other connection to BARX).  The lawsuit alleges that Barclays used
the Last Look function to hold such trades or trade instructions
for a programmed delay period during which Barclays determined
whether to accept or reject such trade or trade instruction based
on, among other things, whether the market price moved beyond a
certain threshold during that delay period.  The lawsuit alleges
that Barclays' Last Look practices violated contract law, the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and New York
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350.  The lawsuit was
brought by, and on behalf of, persons who submitted trade or trade
instructions for FX Instruments to Barclays over BARX.  Barclays
denies that the allegations of the complaint have merit.

A proposed settlement has been reached with Barclays.  Barclays
has agreed to pay $50,000,000 ("Settlement Fund").  The United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("Court") authorized this notice.  Before any money is paid, the
Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
settlement.  Approval of the settlement by the Court will resolve
this lawsuit in its entirety.

WHO IS A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER?

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class includes all
persons who, between June 1, 2008 and April 21, 2016, submitted a
trade or trade instruction for an FX Instrument to Barclays over
BARX (whether submitted on BARX or via an ECN or any other
connection to BARX) to which Barclays applied Last Look, or as to
which Barclays engaged in any other conduct that is the subject of
a Released Claim and who were either (i) domiciled in the United
States, or (ii) (a) domiciled outside the United States and (b)
had such trade or trade instruction routed over a Barclays server
in the United States.  The capitalized terms used in this
paragraph are defined in the Settlement Agreement, which can be
accessed at www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including a detailed notice, at
www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com by calling toll free (800) 231-1815
(if dialing from outside the United States or Canada, call (614)
553-1610).

WILL I GET A PAYMENT?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out of
the Settlement Class, you will be eligible for a payment under the
settlement if you file a proof of claim and release form.  The
amount of any payment will be determined by the Proposed Plan of
Distribution.  Details about the Proposed Plan of Distribution are
available at www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com.  A date for
distribution of the Settlement Fund has not been set.  Proof of
claim and release forms must be postmarked by May 19, 2017, or
sent in electronically through www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com on
or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 19, 2017.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out,
you will release certain legal rights against Barclays and the
Released Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and
settlement agreement, which are available at
www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com.  If you do not want to take part
in the proposed settlement, you must opt out by March 30, 2017.

You may, but do not have to, comment on or object to the proposed
settlement, the Proposed Plan of Distribution, or class counsel's
application to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and a service award to the plaintiff for representing
the Settlement Class.  To do so, you must submit your written
comment or objection by March 30, 2017.

Information on how to opt out or submit comments or objections is
contained in the detailed notice and at
www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com.

WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

The Court will hold a hearing on July 18, 2017, at 4:30 p.m.,
before the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 1106,
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY
10007 to consider whether to approve the proposed settlement, the
Proposed Plan of Distribution, and Class Counsel's application to
the Court for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and a service
award to Class Plaintiff.  You or your lawyer may ask to appear
and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have
to.

For more information, call (800) 231-1815 (if dialing from outside
the United States or Canada, call (614) 553-1610) or visit
www.BarxLastLookSettlement.com.

Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement


CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Court Denied Class Certification in "Deere"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEERE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FLORIDA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-24375-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga
entered an order denying the following two classes:

FDUTPA Class:

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

Contract Class:

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

According to the Court, as a result of the materially different
circumstances among different class members, Plaintiff's proposed
classes are overly broad, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
common issues predominate over individual issues.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c9lu0tRs


CHINA FINANCE: March 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 5 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depository
Shares of China Finance Online Co. Limited (NASDAQ: JRJC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING
CHINA FINANCE ONLINE CO. LTD. SECURITY HOLDERS

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES OF CHINA FINANCE ONLINE CO. LIMITED DURING THE
PERIOD FROM APRIL 29, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 3, 2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that the
Lead Plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement with China
Finance Online to resolve all claims in the case for $3,000,000 in
cash.

The settlement Class consists of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired China Finance Online American
Depositary Shares during the Class Period of April 29, 2013,
through June 3, 2015, inclusive.

A "fairness hearing" will be held on March 21, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 17B,
New York, New York 10007, to determine whether the Court should
approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate
and whether the Court should grant Lead Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount (or
$1,000,000) and up to $70,000 in expenses, and  claims
administrator fees of up to $200,000. You are invited to attend
this hearing if you wish.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.

If you have not received the full Notice of the Proposed
Settlement (the "Notice"), you may obtain it by contacting the
Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services, Inc., by mail at
China Finance Online Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, Inc., 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063, by
telephone, at 866-274-4004, or by email, at
info@strategicclaims.net. You may also download a copy of the
Notice from: www.strategicclaims.net.

To participate in the settlement, you must submit a Claim Form.
You may download the Claim Form from www.strategicclaims.net, or
you may contact the Claims Administrator to request a Claim Form
(and to be added to the mailing list).  Completed Claim Forms must
be postmarked or received by March 3, 2017, at the Claims
Administrator's address, China Finance Online Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares
during the Class Period, you will be deemed a Class Member unless
you ask to opt out from the Class.  Any requests to opt out of the
Settlement must be mailed to the Claims Administrator's address,
China Finance Online Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, Inc., 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 and
postmarked or received by the Claim Administrator by March 3,
2017.  Each request to opt out should (i) state the name, address,
telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of the person
or entity requesting exclusion, (ii) state that such person or
entity requests exclusion from the China Finance Online
Settlement, (iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting
exclusion, and (iv) provide the date(s) and number(s) of shares of
all purchases and sales of American Depositary Shares during the
Class Period.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
class action unless you timely request exclusion from the Class as
more fully explained in the Notice.  If you submit a valid and
timely request for exclusion, you cannot share in the settlement
money and will not be bound by the Settlement.

The Notice also describes how you may object to any aspect the
Settlement, including the Plan of Allocation or the request for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  All objections must be in writing,
postmarked or received by Counsel for the Class no later than
March 3, 2017, at the following address: Laurence Rosen, Esq., The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY
10016.

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice or for
inclusion in the mailing list for future notices, may also be
directed to Counsel for the Class, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., at
the mailing address listed above, or by phone at (212) 686-1060 or
email at lrosen@rosenlegal.com.


CHUNG CHOU CITY: "Lao" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mei Na Lao and Wei Si Xiao, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. Chung Chou City I, Inc., N.Y., Chung
Chou City, LLC, Sharon Feng, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:16-
cv-09193 (S.D.N.Y., November 29, 2016), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to: (i)
unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (ii)
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Chung Chou City I, Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal
place of business in New York City.  N.Y. Chung Chou City, LLC is
a New York company with a principal place of business in New York
City.  Sharon Feng is an owner or part owner and principal of the
Chung Chou City Defendants.  The Defendants own and operate two
Asian grocery stores in Manhattan, as part of a chain of several
stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

               - and -

          Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 349-6099
          E-mail: vswlaw@gmail.com


COMCAST CABLE: Fails to Give Meal/Rest Periods, "Scott" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE SCOTT, an individual; KEN FASSLER, an individual; ELIJAH
MAXWELL-WILSON, an individual, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-06869-LB (N.D. Cal., November 30, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of failure to, among other things, provide meal
periods, provide rest periods and pay hourly wages.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, is a Delaware
corporation authorized to do business in California.  Comcast
Cable operates as a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation -- the
largest cable operator in the United States.  The Plaintiffs are
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, 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
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com


COVENTRY HEALTH: Social Workers Class Certified in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
After an independent de novo review of the record in the matter,
and noting that no objections were timely filed, the Hon. Carlos
E. Mendoza agrees entirely with the analysis in the Report and
Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B.
Smith in the lawsuit entitled MIA WILLIAMS v. COVENTRY HEALTH CARE
OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-00731-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.).

Therefore, Judge Mendoza:

   -- adopted and confirmed the Report and Recommendation, and
      made a part of the order;

   -- granted the Stipulated Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification and Court-Authorized Notice;

   -- conditionally certified the case as a collective action for
      the following class:

      All Social Workers employed by Defendant in the State of
      Florida within the three-year period immediately preceding
      the filing of this case;

   -- approved the proposed Notice of Lawsuit Regarding Potential
      Overtime Wages and consent/opt-in form;

   -- granted the Plaintiff's Motion regarding service via
      e-mail;

   -- directed the Defendant to deliver on or before December 5,
      2016, to the Plaintiff's counsel the list containing the
      full names and last known addresses of putative class
      members, consistent with the terms of the Stipulated
      Motion;

   -- directed the Plaintiff's counsel to give notice to the
      individuals in the conditionally certified class within 21
      days of receiving the names and addresses from the
      Defendant; and

   -- ruled that individuals, who timely opt into the action will
      be deemed parties for all purposes under the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure pending further order of the Court and
      may be represented at any settlement or mediation by the
      named Plaintiff.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KTqEw5QE


CPN MECHANICAL: Faces "Dolmo" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPN Mechanical Inc.
The case is titled Oscar Dolmo, Celso Nunez, Julio Nunez, Jose
Geovanny Guity Arriola, Mario Dolmo, and Angel Socratez,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. CPN Mechanical Inc., doing business as CPN
Mechanical; Dino Nikolis; Constantin Nikolis; Yvonne Nikolis; and
Charly Ho, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06691 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
2, 2016).

CPN Mechanical is a mechanical contractor specializing in all
phases of HVAC work, including plan and specification and
design/build.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


DICK'S SPORTING: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Ngiem"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PHILLIP NGHIEM, the Plaintiff, v. DICK'S
SPORTING GOODS, INC., ZETA INTERACTIVE CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00097-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion
for class certification of:

   "all persons who, after opting-out of Dick's Sporting Goods,
   Inc.'s mobile alerts program, received unconsented text
   message advertisements from Defendants via Dick's mobile
   alerts program".

The Court said, "Defendants argue that Nghiem is not an adequate
class representative because he is subject to defenses that do not
apply to the rest of the class and has no credibility.
While these arguments primarily relate to typicality, "a named
plaintiff who has serious credibility problems or who is likely to
devote too much attention to rebutting an individual defense may
not be an adequate class representative". CE Design Ltd. v. King
Architectural Metals, Inc., 637 F.3d 721, 726 (7th Cir. 2011).
Additionally, "[t]he honesty and credibility of a class
representative is a relevant consideration when performing the
adequacy inquiry 'because an untrustworthy plaintiff could reduce
the likelihood of prevailing on the class claims'." Harris v.
Vector Mktg. Corp., 753 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
(quoting Searcy v. eFunds Corp., No. 08 C 985, 2010 WL 1337684,
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2010). The Court is convinced that if Nghiem
is the class representative, he and his counsel will have to
devote most of their time and resources trying to refute
Defendants' attacks on his character and his motivations for
filing and litigating this lawsuit. This skewed focus and
diversion of resources will come at the expense of Nghiem's
ability to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the rest of
the class and obtain monetary recovery for any members of the
class who undisputedly had their privacy invaded when they
received unwanted text messages from DSG. See Satterfield, 569
F.3d at 954 ("The purpose and history of the TCPA indicate that
Congress was trying to prohibit the use of ATDSs to communicate
with others by telephone in a manner that would be an invasion of
privacy."). Simply stated, Nghiem cannot fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class as is required by Rule 23(a)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xYl9yAWB


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Pennington Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Pennington asks the Court to conditionally certify the
action styled DORIS PENNINGTON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC; GDK GO, INC. &
EL SADIG ABDELMOTAL, Case No. 4:16-cv-01759 (S.D. Tex.), for
purposes of notice and discovery.

Ms. Pennington asserts that she is similarly situated to the class
of Pizza Delivery Drivers she seeks to represent.  She contends
that the Putative Class members all were paid a tipped rate of $6
per hour, were required to provide and maintain a vehicle to
perform their job duties, and were not paid sufficient tips to
meet the minimum wage requirement under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  She adds that all of the Putative Class Members were
required to perform duties inside the Domino's restaurant, which
required more than 20% of their time and duties, which were
classified as a "dual job."

Ms. Pennington also asks the Court to order that a judicially
approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members by mail and
e-mail, approve the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
judicial notice and reminder notice, order the Defendants to
produce to her counsel the necessary information for each of the
Putative Class Members, and authorize a 60-day notice period for
the Putative Class Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DZTwX5u5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          Nichole Nech, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
                  nn@tranlawllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ruth Ann Daniels, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Facsimile: (469) 320-6839
          E-mail: rdaniels@grayreed.com


DT HOSPITALITY: Faces "Lee" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DT Hospitality Group
Inc. The case is entitled Joh Kie Lee and James Arvay, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DT Hospitality Group Inc. doing business as Co Ba
Restaurant; Kien Truong; John Does Nos. 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09326 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2016).

DT Hospitality is in the hotel or motel management business.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


DW SANDERS: "Rogers" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER ROGERS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. D.W. SANDERS CERAMIC TILE & STONE CONTRACTING, INC., a Domestic
Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-04421-CAP (N.D. Ga., November
30, 2016), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover from the Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

D.W. Sanders Ceramic Tile & Stone Contracting, Inc., is a Domestic
Profit Corporation that operates and conducts business in Cobb
County, Georgia.  The Company provides cleaning, painting, and
carpet drying to their customers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian R. Miller, Esq.
          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          P.O. Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-8811
          Facsimile: (404) 965-8812
          E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com
                  CLeach@forthepeople.com


DYNAMIC INTEGRATED: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Pierre" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAX PIERRE v. DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC. and ZEEV
FRAGACHAN, Case No. 0:16-cv-62831-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 30,
2016), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act alleging that the Defendants have employed several
similarly situated employees, like the Plaintiff, who have not
been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly.

Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Broward County, Florida.  Zeev Fragachan
is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.  The
Company provides architectural and engineering resources necessary
to develop programs needed for optimal protection. The Company's
expertise includes: workplace violence prevention; electronic
systems design; access entry control; closed circuit television;
communications and control; organization, policy and procedures;
guard force development; executive protection; expert witness
testimony and consulting; disaster planning and emergency
preparedness; and critical incident management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Silverberg, Esq.
          SILVERBERG & WEISS, P.A.
          1290 Weston Road, Suite 218
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 384-0998
          Facsimile: (954) 384-5390
          E-mail: psilverberg@pkslegal.com


EL CASTILLO: Fails to Pay OT and Minimum Wages, "Porro" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ PORRO and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. EL CASTILLO DE LAS FRUTAS II, CORP,
RICARDO LARGO PEREZ, Case No. 1:16-cv-24962-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
November 29, 2016), alleges that similarly situated employees of
the Defendants, like the Plaintiff, have not been paid overtime
and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

El Castillo de las Frutas II, Corp., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.  Ricardo Largo
Perez is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Faces Fraud Class Action in Portland
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a new class-action lawsuit
claims that an electric company deceived Maine consumers and
shorted them of $35 million.

A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland on Nov. 18
claims that Electricity Maine used fraud and deception to enroll
200,000 Maine households and small businesses with the promise of
substantial cost savings.

A representative for Spark Holdco LLC, which owns Electricity
Maine, said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Maine residents Kathleen Veilleux and Jennifer Chon are seeking
damages to recover the $35 million.  Their attorney, Benjamin
Donahue, said he's received calls from dozens more ratepayers
since filing the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Electricity Maine enrolls customers at
artificially low rates and then transfers them with little notice
to long-term rates that exceed the standard-offer rate.


FIFTH STREET: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE FIFTH STREET FINANCE CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Matter Relates To:

All Actions

Case No. 15-cv-7759 (LAK)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF:
(1) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION;
(2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES; AND
(3) HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF FIFTH
STREET FINANCE CORP. ("FSC") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM
JULY 7, 2014 THROUGH FEBRUARY 6, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"):

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that the
Lead Plaintiff has reached a proposed settlement to resolve all
claims in the case for $14,050,000 in cash (the "Settlement").

The Settlement is independent of a separate settlement of a class
action brought on behalf of shareholders of Fifth Street Asset
Management Inc. ("FSAM").  A separate notice has been issued for
the FSAM Settlement.

The Class in the FSC class action consists of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired FSC common stock
during the Class Period, with some exclusions described in the
full notice of the proposed Settlement (the "Notice").  If you
have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain it by contacting
the Claims Administrator at FSC Securities Settlement, c/o A.B.
Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173025, Milwaukee, WI  53217; telephone:
866-217-4461; email:  info@FSCSecuritiesSettlement.com.  You may
also download the Notice and other documents from:
www.FSCSecuritiesSettlement.com.

A hearing will be held on February 16, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., before
United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 21B, New York, New York 10007, to determine
whether the Court should (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, (ii) approve the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds, and (iii)
grant Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.  The Court may change the date of the
Fairness Hearing without further notice to the Class.  If you
intend to attend the hearing, you should confirm the date and time
with Lead Counsel or by checking the Settlement website.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
MONEY.

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form.
You may download the Claim Form from
www.FSCSecuritiesSettlement.com, or you may ask the Claims
Administrator to send you a Claim Form and add you to the mailing
list.  You may also obtain, complete, and file a Claim Form online
at www.FSCSecuritiesSettlement.com by March 27, 2017.  Completed
Claim Forms must be postmarked or received by March 27, 2017, at
the Claims Administrator's address (printed above).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FSC common stock during the
Class Period, you will be deemed a Class Member unless you ask to
be excluded from the Class.  Any requests for exclusion must be
received by January 26, 2017, at the Claims Administrator's
address (printed above).  Each request for exclusion must (i)
state the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if
available) of the person or entity requesting exclusion, (ii)
state that such person or entity requests exclusion from the FSC
Settlement, (iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting
exclusion, and (iv) provide the date(s), price(s), and number(s)
of shares of all purchases and sales of FSC common stock during
the Class Period.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the class action unless you timely request exclusion from the
Class as explained in the Notice, even if you have pending or
later file another lawsuit, arbitration, or other proceeding
relating to the claims covered by the Settlement.  If you submit a
valid and timely request for exclusion, you cannot share in the
settlement money, cannot object to the Settlement, and will not be
bound by the Settlement or the Court's rulings.

The Notice also describes how to object to the proposed
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request for attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses, and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for
reimbursement of its expenses (including lost wages).  All
objections must be received by the Court (at the address above)
and by the lawyers listed below no later than January 26, 2017:

Lead Counsel for the Class
Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY  10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com

Defendants' Counsel
Ralph C. Ferrara, Esq.
Proskauer Rose LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 600 South
Washington, DC  20004
rferrara@proskauer.com

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice or for
inclusion in the mailing list for future notices, may be directed
to Lead Counsel for the Class.  Please do not contact the Court or
Defendants.

Dated:  December 7, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT


FLOWER FOODS: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Richard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carol B. Whitehurst granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification, including Court-approved notice
to be issued to potential class participants in the lawsuit
captioned Antoine Richard, et al. v. Flower Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.).

The collective action is brought for alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.  The
Plaintiffs allege they were improperly classified as independent
contractors and seek to assert their claims on behalf of:

     all individuals who, through a contract with Defendants or
     otherwise, distribute or distributed for Defendants under
     agreements with [the subsidiary bakeries] or any other
     affiliates or subsidiaries of Flowers Foods, Inc. which
     employ distributors working within the State of Louisiana;
     and who were classified by Defendants as "independent
     contractors" . . . anywhere at any time in the United States
     from the date that is three years preceding the commencement
     of this action through the close of the Court-determined
     opt-in period and who file a consent to join this action
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Judge Whitehurst opined that conditional class certification is
proper with regard to any distributor working either for any of
the fifteen warehouses associated with FBC-Baton Rouge or the four
warehouses associated with FBC-Tyler.  The Defendant will have 10
days from the entry of the Court's Order, or through and including
December 8, 2016, to provide the Plaintiffs with an updated
computer readable data file containing information necessary to
facilitate notice, including the name, last known mailing address,
last known telephone number, e-mail address, employment dates as a
distributor, date of birth and the last four digits of the social
security numbers of each current and former distributors of the
Defendants, who have worked as a distributor during the three
years prior to October 21, 2015.

The Plaintiffs must submit a revised copy of the Proposed Notice
for final Court review no later than 10 days from the entry of the
Order, or through and including December 8.  Once the revised
Proposed Notice is approved, the Plaintiffs are authorized to: (1)
disseminate the approved Notice to prospective class members; (2)
post the Notice to prospective class members at each of the
warehouses associated with FBC-Baton Rouge and FBC-Tyler in the
same areas they are required to post FLSA notices.

Prospective class members may opt in to the collective action if:
(1) they have mailed, faxed, or e-mailed their consent form to
counsel for the class within 60 days after the Notice and consent
forms have been mailed out to the class and otherwise posted at
each appropriate warehouse; or (2) they show good cause for any
delay.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mXF0vDvX


FOGLE ENTERPRISES: Court Issues Prelim. Class Certification Writ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura A. Bentele, Esq. -- lbentele@armstrongteasdale.com -- of
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that Relators/Defendants Fogle Enterprises, Inc., and
Nolan Fogle requested that the Court issue a writ prohibiting
Respondent, the Honorable Laura J. Johnson, from continuing to
conduct the litigation, styled Richard McMillin v. Fogle
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 14AF-CC00154-01 (Christian
County, Mo.), as a class action.

Relators maintain that certification of the Underlying Litigation
as a class action was a clear abuse of discretion, because (1) the
class is not ascertainable, i.e., there is no administratively
feasible method to identify the class, (2) the class definition is
impermissibly overbroad, as it includes countless businesses and
other customers that contributed to the CDF in connection with a
transaction that was made for business purposes and who,
therefore, may not maintain a private right of action under the
MMPA, and (3) the lack of ascertainability and overbreadth of the
class definition deprived Respondent of the ability to
appropriately determine whether the requirements of Rule 52.08 and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 were met, as required to maintain a class
action under the MMPA

Petition for writ of prohibition sustained by the Court.
Preliminary writ of prohibition ordered to issue returnable to
Court en Banc in thirty days.


FOREMOST INSURANCE: "Braden" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID BRADEN and DALE BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:15-cv-04114-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for class certification of:

   "all persons and entities that received "actual cash value"
   payments, directly or indirectly, from Foremost for loss or
   damage to a dwelling or other structure located in the State
   of Arkansas, such payments arising from events that occurred
   on or after November 21, 2008, where the cost of labor was
   depreciated".

Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons and entities that
received payment from Foremost in the full amount of insurance
shown on the declarations page; (2) Foremost and its affiliates,
officers, and directors; (3) members of the judiciary and their
staff to whom this action is assigned; (4) all persons who have a
pending bankruptcy or whose claims were discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding; (5) all persons who executed a release of the claims
set forth herein; and (6) Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Plaintiffs further ask that David Braden and Dale Brown be
named as class representatives for the class, and the undersigned
counsel from the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP;
Keil & Goodson, P.A.; Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC; Murphy,
Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Crowley Norman LLP;
Taylor Law Partners; Law Office of George L. McWilliams; and James
M. Pratt, Jr. P.A. be appointed as counsel for the Class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          Matt Keil, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854R
          Telephone: (870) 772 4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773 2967
          E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com
                  mkeil@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          R. Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651 1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651 1775
          E-mail: norman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          Tom Thompson, Esq.
          Casey Castleberry, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD,
          SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          555 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Post Office Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503
          Telephone: (870) 793 3821
          Facsimile: (870) 793 3815
          E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com
                  caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          13190 North MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603 2222
          Facsimile: (405) 603 2250
          E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
          CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  rrusso@ktmc.com

               - and -

          W. H. Taylor, Esq.
          Stevan E. Vowell, Esq.
          William B. Putman, Esq.
          Timothy J. Myers, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 East Millsap Road
          Post Office Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443 5222
          Facsimile: (479) 443 7842
          E-mail: whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com
                  svowell@taylorlawpartners.com
                  wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com
                  tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com


INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeiture Law
-----------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that criminal
defense attorney Jeff Cardella wears his beliefs on his sleeve, in
the form of a pair of large, pastel yellow "Don't Tread On Me"
cuff links.

In between explanations of his libertarian principles, the
34-year-old Cardella said his clients may not always be the most
sympathetic individuals, but they deserve their rights, too.

Mr. Cardella filed a federal class-action lawsuit this month, on
behalf of Leroy Washington, whose vehicle was taken by police in
September.  Mr. Washington was arrested and charged with resisting
law enforcement, dealing in marijuana and obstruction of justice.

The suit argues that the Indiana law that allows police to seize
property from alleged drug dealers and others, regardless of their
guilt or innocence, violates criminal defendants' constitutional
right to due process.

It "allows the executive branch to seize and hold the vehicle of
an owner for several months without affording the owner the right
to a postseizure preforfeiture hearing to challenge the seizure,"
according to the complaint.

It's an argument that could, if it prevails in court, have a
sweeping effect on law enforcement.

According to Justice Department data, Indiana State Police seized
more than $2.2 million in personal property from Indiana residents
in 2014.  In Marion County, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department seized roughly $48,022 in personal property that year,
according to the data.

The suit, limited specifically to vehicles in IMPD possession,
does not seek monetary damages.  Rather, Washington wants law
enforcement to give back his vehicle, and the vehicles of
countless individuals whose property was seized under Indiana's
civil forfeiture laws.

Mr. Cardella also seeks a reduction in the period of time law
enforcement can hold property without stating a reason for seizing
it.

"It's a matter of protecting the constitutional rights of my
clients," said Mr. Cardella, a professor at Indiana University's
Robert H. McKinney School of Law, who is vehemently opposed to
"unjust government taking."

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry, Mayor Joe Hogsett and IMPD
Police Chief Troy Riggs are named defendants in the complaint.

Mr. Curry told IndyStar that there are a variety of reasons why
the law, as it exists today, is reasonable and constitutional.

"There are protections built in the law to protect innocent
people," Mr. Curry said.  "An aggrieved party could ask for an
emergency hearing to get their property back."

However, experts and civil libertarians such as Mr. Cardella argue
that civil forfeiture laws may be due for U.S. Supreme Court
review.

Civil forfeiture around the country

Today, all states allow for forfeiture and there are more than 400
federal forfeiture statutes.  Legal opinions written on the matter
show an inconsistency as to what is and is not a violation of an
individual's property rights.

On a federal level, writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v.
United States, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated that
a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no
right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the
defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at
trial.

The dissenters in the case were strange bedfellows, ranging from
traditionally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the more
liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

There is also room for interpretation at the state level.

In Indiana, former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who wrote the
Supreme Court ruling in another civil forfeiture case, said
criticisms of asset seizure may be legitimate in some places.  But
instances vary from one jurisdiction to another.  "There are
places where it's used more forcefully than most people would
think is appropriate," Justice Shepard said.

Because the process is characterized as "civil forfeiture" rather
than "criminal forfeiture," he said, property can be taken
regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused party, which
raises concerns.

"The relative ease of effecting such forfeiture and the
disposition of the assets have become a matter of public note,"
Justice Shepard wrote.

Washington, through Mr. Cardella, argues that the length of time
that police have to possess individuals' property unduly burdens
property owners.

Under Indiana law, the executive branch can hold a vehicle for up
to six months.  If the state decides to file a forfeiture claim
against the vehicle within the first 180 days, the vehicle is held
indefinitely until the case is concluded, which can often be
several additional months, according to court documents.

"I think there is a widespread misunderstanding (that civil
forfeiture) is not a unilateral act," Mr. Curry told IndyStar.  He
explained that most of individuals whose property is seized are
drug dealers and the like.

However, case law throughout the country suggests that Indiana's
laws -- when it comes to the length of time that law enforcement
can hold onto a vehicle -- may be unconstitutional.

In a 2002 U.S. Court of Appeals opinion authored by Ms. Sotomayor,
the court held that the Constitution demanded a speedy process to
determine whether the government was likely to win the forfeiture
claim.

In the case, Krimstock v. Kelly, three automobile owners
challenged a New York City policy that allowed the city to seize
motor vehicles from individuals accused of certain crimes
involving motor vehicles and then to hold the vehicles --
sometimes for years -- in hopes of gaining title in civil
forfeiture proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court has passed on making a substantive ruling
on civil forfeiture matters, specifically pertaining to vehicles.

Challenges coming from all sides

And Mr. Cardella's isn't the only suit challenging Indiana's
statute.

Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian
nonprofit based in Arlington, Va., filed a lawsuit in February
(Jeana M. Horner, Dennis Jack Horner, et al. v. Terry R. Curry,
Marion County Prosecutor's Office, et al.) in Marion Superior
Court charging the IMPD and prosecutors with violating the Indiana
Constitution by not forwarding all civil forfeiture proceeds to
the state's common school fund.

Instead, the county is keeping 100 percent of the money in a
"policing for profit" scheme, the institute said.

The Marion County Prosecutor's Office and the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department divvy up all the money received
from civil forfeitures based on a 30/70 split, according to the
lawsuit.

The case has yet to be decided.

Regarding Washington and Mr. Cardella's lawsuit, Mr. Gedge said,
"There are two fundamental problems which make it a serious
assault on property rights: It allows law enforcement to seize
property, that's ripe for abuse.  And what makes the process more
pernicious, (is that law enforcement) is seizing a direct stake in
property."

Mr. Cardella, said while it's not likely that the case will go to
the Supreme Court, "I hope it does."

Mr. Cardella, who lives in a rural area outside of Indianapolis,
said he prizes his privacy and freedoms as an American.

Citing the Join, or Die political cartoon of a snake cut into
pieces drawn by Benjamin Franklin in 1754, Mr. Cardella believes
in the collective power of the people to unite against tyranny and
unfairness.

He sees current civil forfeiture laws as the government's way of
trampling on citizens' rights.

"This is the kind of case that made me want to go to law school."


JACKSON NATIONAL: Tredinnick Sues Over Improper Surrender Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD AND EILEEN TREDINNICK, IRWIN AND RUTH SEARS, DAVID CRUSON,
JAMES R. GLENN, SUZANNE HOUSEWRIGHT, JEFFREY R. AND KAREN T.
MILLER, DALE AND JANICE MORRIS, BILLY AND CAROLYN WALKER, AND
RONALD L. WYATT v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00912-ALM (E.D. Tex., November 29, 2016), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other variable annuity contract
holders, who purchased their contracts from Jackson National.

The Plaintiffs assert that Jackson National has improperly charged
all variable annuity contract holders with respect to what are
called "surrender charges" in connection with administration of
variable annuity contracts it issued.  The Plaintiffs are
individuals who each, either individually or together with their
spouses, purchased a variable annuity from Jackson National.

Jackson National is organized as an insurance company under the
laws of the state of Michigan and maintains its principal place of
business and headquarters in Lansing, Michigan.  Jackson National
is licensed to do business in the state of Texas.  Jackson
National is a stock life insurance company and is the company that
issued the variable life annuity contracts to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
          300 Crescent Court Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4000
          Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Samuel F. Baxter, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
          104 East Houston, Suite 300
          Marshall, TX 75670
          Telephone: (903)923-9001
          Telecopier: (903) 923-9099
          E-mail: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Gary D. Corley, Esq.
          CORLEY LAW FIRM
          108 North Travis Street
          Sherman, TX 75090
          Telephone: (903) 892-1048
          Facsimile: (214) 260-4925
          E-mail: garycorley@gcorleylaw.com


LIFE INSURANCE: Faces "Bogner" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BOGNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-08906 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2016),
seeks payment of life insurance benefits and disgorgement of all
profits allegedly unjustly retained by LINA as the result of its
wrongful denial or reduction of claims for life insurance benefits
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Life Insurance Company of North America offers group life,
accident, and disability insurance coverage. The company was
founded in 1956 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Life
Insurance Company of North America operates as a subsidiary of
Cigna Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
     Andrew M. Kantor, Esq.
     KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
     19839 Nordhoff Street
     Northridge, CA, 91324
     Phone: (818) 886-2525
     Fax: (818) 350-6272
     E-Mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
             akantor@kantorlaw.net


M + M COMMUNICATIONS: Sigui Moves to Certify Two FLSA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the matter entitled JUAN SIGUI, JOSE SIGUI, JOSE
CIPRIANO, JOSEPH MENDEZ, and JOSE L. SANTOS, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. M + M
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., alias, COX RHODE ISLAND TELECOM, LLC, d/b/a
COX COMMUNICATIONS, alias, and COXCOM, LLC d/b/a COX
COMMUNICATIONS NEW ENGLAND, alias, Case No. 1:14-cv-00442-S-LDA
(D.R.I.), move the Court to conditionally certify two Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action classes:

   (1) The First Class consists of all current and former
       individuals employed as Field Service Technicians (or
       other comparable positions) who were hired and paid by
       Defendants by and through Defendant M + M Communications,
       Inc. ("M + M") to perform installation and/or maintenance
       services on cable television, Internet, and/or telephone
       lines and/or equipment for customers of Defendants Rhode
       Island Telcom, LLC, alias, and Coxcom LLC, alias
       (hereinafter collectively "Cox") obtained by and through
       Defendant Cox and were subject to the following common
       practices or policies, at any time from three (3) years
       before the filing of this Complaint to the present: a) who
       were paid IRS Form 1099 compensation; and, b) were not
       paid wages for all hours worked; and/or, c) who worked
       more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, but were not
       paid at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times their regular
       rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40);
       and

   (2) The Second Class consists of current and former
       individuals employed as Field Service Technicians (or
       other comparable positions) who were hired and paid by
       Defendants by and through Defendant M + M to perform
       installation and/or maintenance services on cable
       television, Internet, and/or telephone lines and/or
       equipment for customers of Defendant Cox obtained by and
       through Defendant Cox and were subject to the following
       common practices or policies, at any time from three (3)
       years before the filing of this Complaint to the present:
       a) who were paid IRS Form W-2 wages; and, b) were not paid
       wages for all hours worked; and/or, c) who worked more
       than forty (40) hours in a workweek, but were not paid at
       least one and one-half (1 1/2) times their regular rate of
       pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40).

The Plaintiffs also move to authorize their counsel to mail or e-
mail in both English and Spanish a Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit,
to post the English and Spanish Notice and Consent forms, and to
send follow up post cards or e-mails to any class members, who
have not responded within 30 days after the initial notice.  The
Plaintiffs further move that M + M be ordered to post the English
and Spanish Notices in conspicuous locations in all of its Rhode
Island worksites, and that the Defendants be ordered to provide
the names and last known addresses of all putative class members
within 30 days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZR0plbLB

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN, P.C.
          One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 427-6113
          Facsimile: (401) 751-0604
          E-mail: Mchittick@apslaw.com

               - and -

          Dean J. Wagner, Esq.
          James G. Atchison, Esq.
          SHECHTMAN HALPERIN SAVAGE, LLP
          1080 Main Street
          Pawtucket, RI 02860
          Telephone: (401) 272-1400
          Facsimile: (401) 272-1403
          E-mail: dwagner@shslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Annette A. Idalski, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA
          191 Peachtree Street NE, 34th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 658-5386
          Facsimile: (404) 658-5387
          E-mail: annette.adalski@chamberlainlaw.com


MANUFACTURERS FINANCIAL: Faces Compressor Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manufacturers
Financial Corporation. The case is captioned Compressor
Engineering Corporation individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
Manufacturers Financial Corporation; Charity Marketing, LLC; and
Richard K. Stephens, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-mc-03020-MKB
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie.

Manufacturers Financial Corporation is a privately held company in
Waterford, Michigan, categorized under financing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
          2000 Town Center, Ste. 900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 936 2147
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          E-mail: tod@classlawyers.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Schwaner" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled Glen F. Schwaner and Lourdes B. Fischer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. MRS BPO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06698
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2016).

MRS BPO is debt collector firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MYLAN NV: Faces "Muchin" Suit in Calif. Over Overpriced EpiPens
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA MUCHIN and PAUL GIBB, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. MYLAN N.V., and MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-06883-DMR (N.D. Cal., November 30, 2016), arises
from Mylan's alleged unfair and oppressive pricing of EpiPen
devices.

"To extract maximum profits from its monopoly in the epinephrine
autoinjector market, Mylan N.V. raised the price it charges for
its EpiPen device to levels far beyond what is reasonable or fair
to consumers relying on this life-saving device," the Plaintiffs
said in their complaint. Today, they add, Mylan charges $609 for a
two-pack of EpiPens that costs no more than $20 to make, which
represents a 548% price increase since Mylan first began selling
the drug, generating revenues for the Company of over one billion
dollars annually.

Mylan N.V. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Netherlands with its headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
Mylan Specialty L.P., formerly known as Dey Pharma, is a limited
partnership organized under the laws of Delaware with its
headquarters in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.  Dey is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Mylan.  In 2007, Mylan NV purchased the rights to
EpiPen from Merck.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com


NAVAJO EXPRESS: "Dianne" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dianne Searles, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Navajo Express, Inc., a Corporation;
and Does 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1613846,
was removed from the Superior Court State of CA for San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02504-AB-SP to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.

Navajo Express is a national transportation provider with
refrigerated, dry van, and intermodal transport services,
specializing in grocery store deliveries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com

Navajo Express, Inc. is represented by:

          Ellen M Bronchetti, Esq.
          Kymberly M Harris, Esq.
          Ronald J Holland II, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER
          AND HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434 9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434 3947
          E-mail: ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com
                  kmharris@sheppardmullin.com
                  rholland@sheppardmullin.com


NEWMAN'S OWN: Faces "Wong" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newman's Own, Inc.
The case is titled Heung Man Wong and John Does 1-100, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Newman's Own, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06690-ARR-
RML (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Allyne R. Ross.

Newman's Own is a food company founded by actor Paul Newman and
author A.E. Hotchner in 1982. The company gives 100% of the after-
tax profits from the sale of its products to Newman's Own
Foundation (a private non-profit foundation) which in turn, gives
the money to various educational and charitable organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


NOVA SCOTIA: Africville Residents' Suit Heads to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brean, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was set to hear arguments about
whether to certify a proposed class action lawsuit for dozens of
former residents of Africville, the black community in north-end
Halifax that in 1969 was cleared of its residents and demolished
to make room for industrial development.

The destruction of the site, especially the Seaview United Baptist
Church that had stood there for over a century, is widely regarded
as a shameful symbol of the treatment of black Nova Scotians, many
of whom had fled slavery in America.

"I'm hoping for a settlement," said Flemming Vemb, a plaintiff and
former resident who recalls being forced out of the four-bedroom
house on the waterfront where his father had tried to build a dry
dock, but was refused permission by the city.  "It was an abrupt
thing," he said of his family's removal from their home.

After years of slow negotiations and growing awareness of the
historical outrage, in 2010 then Halifax mayor Peter Kelly signed
off on an almost $5-million compensation deal, from three levels
of government, which included an apology.  As a result, a replica
of the church has been built and a park established on the site.

"We apologize for the heartache experienced at the loss of the
Seaview United Baptist Church, the spiritual heart of the
community, removed in the middle of the night.  We acknowledge the
tremendous importance the church had, both for the congregation
and the community as a whole," Kelly said.

That deal involved no personal compensation and no admission of
liability by Halifax, however, and it led to discord, with some
plaintiffs saying the settlement was signed over their objections.

The lawsuit was filed in 1996, the same year Africville was
designated a National Historic Site.  It includes nearly 40
plaintiffs who are still alive, and families of many more who have
died, who claim they were not compensated for the loss of their
lands. Many of the named plaintiffs are related, with Carvery,
Flint, Izzard and Vemb especially common surnames.

As a judge put it, they claim "Halifax is liable to the former
residents and their descendants for a broad array of tortious
conduct and breaches of contract over the span of the community's
existence."


PMF STEEL: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, "Culajay" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROCAEL ANTONIO CULAJAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. P.M.F. STEEL CORP., and HELDER CARDOSO and
MARIA G. MARTINS, as individuals, Case No. CV16-6597 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 29, 2016), seeks to recover damages for alleged egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment at P.M.F. Steel.

P.M.F. Steel Corp. is a New York corporation with a principal
executive office in Hempstead, New York.  The Individual
Defendants own or operate P.M.F. Steel.  The Company is a full
service custom steel fabrication company that specializes in
custom steel work and steel repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


POMONA, CA: Lockers for Homeless Opened Following Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rodriguez, writing for Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,
reports that everyday, a handful of homeless people have been
stopping at the courtyard of the Pomona Armory and to store their
belongings in one of 388 lockers.

The storage lockers, what Pomona officials call the Transitional
Storage Center, opened Nov. 21 and are the result of a federal
class-action lawsuit filed in March on behalf of 15 Pomona
homeless individuals.  In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs complained
members of the Pomona Police Department and other city personnel
often seized and discarded their belongings.

Among the items confiscated were prescription medications,
documents such a identification cards, family photographs and
other mementos.

Homeless advocates view the settlement agreement as a step to
address the problems the homeless face.

As of midday Nov. 25, 24 homeless Pomona residents had signed up
for a locker, said Angie Valenzuela, a case manager assistant with
the Volunteers of America Greater Los Angeles, which is
responsible for monitoring the center along with a security guard.

Most of the people who have been seeking storage lockers are men
who are chronically homeless.

"Mostly they bring clothes, blankets, hygiene products and books,"
Ms. Valenzuela said, adding she reminds people that if they are
going to need their blankets, they will have to return to retrieve
them before 2:00 p.m. when the center closes for the day.

The center features four shipping containers that accommodate the
lockers capable of holding 60 gallons of materials.  Of the 388
lockers, about 20 have been set up to be easily accessible by
clients who are disabled.

For now, the center will be open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
seven days a week, Benita DeFrank, the city's homeless services
director, said.

The start of the center's operation is considered a soft opening,
Ms. DeFrank said, but a major outreach effort is planned to
attract Pomona homeless residents to the facility in early
December, when the Pomona Armory opens its doors to serve as a
winter shelter.

Once the winter shelter opens,so will Operation Warm Hart, a
daytime initiative in which various nonprofits and other groups
offer numerous services, including help to secure permanent
housing, Ms. DeFrank said.

The idea for the Transitional Storage Center came about as city
staffers researched how other cities are helping the homeless in
their communities, according to a city staff report.

Natasha Maseuli signed up for a locker on Nov. 25.  She learned
about the lockers through a friend.

Ms. Maseuli said she opted to get a locker "so I won't be losing
my stuff."

Before Ms. Maseuli walked away, Ms. Valenzuela provided a packet
of information that included names and contact information for
organizations, as well as various resources that she may find
useful.

The lockers come with a heavy-duty combination lock, with the
combination set by each client, for free.  Clients -- who must be
Pomona residents -- must check in at the center at least once a
week to continue to use the locker.

Information on the Transitional Storage Center is by calling the
city's homeless services coordinator at 909-620-2571 or Volunteers
of America Greater Los Angeles at 909-593-4796.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is captioned Bobby Jones,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Mitchell
International, Inc., and The Progressive Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06941-EDL (N.D. Cal., Dec. 2, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte.

Progressive Casualty provides insurance products in the United
States. It offers auto, motorcycle, recreational vehicle/trailer,
boat, car, snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, personal watercraft,
golf cart, and Segway insurance products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Alexander Kleczek, Esq.
          KLECZEK LAW OFFICE
          825 Washington Street, Suite 301
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 633 7100
          Facsimile: (510) 663 7102
          E-mail: david.kleczek@kleczeklaw.com


PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Kritcher" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Bernard A. Friedman granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN KRITCHER v.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-12637-BAF-EAS
(E.D. Mich.).

As discussed on the record, Judge Friedman ruled that the parties
will have to prepare an order detailing the acceptable methods of
noticing class members.

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


RENOVATE AMERICA: "Ramos" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Ramos, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. San
Bernardino Associated Governments and Renovate America, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1618459, was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02491 to the
proceeding.

Renovate America provides financing solutions for homes and
communities in the areas of energy and water in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RENOVATE AMERICA: "Richardson" Suit Moved to C.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Richardson On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
County of Los Angeles and Renovate America, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. BC639230, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-08943 to the proceeding.

Renovate America provides financing solutions for homes and
communities in the areas of energy and water in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RENUE SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. RENUE SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., RENUE SYSTEMS, INC., RENUE SYSTEMS OF
CHICAGO, INC., Illinois corporations, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10975 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for class certification of:

"all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of
this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and
(3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or
invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice".

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V07HE4qi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RENZENBERGER INC: Court Certified Waiting Time Class in "Wright"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RODERICK WRIGHT, FERNANDO OLIVAREZ, MARCUS
HAYNES, JR., and MICHAEL WATSON, individuals on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
RENZENBERGER, INC., a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-06642-FMO-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:

   1. certifying a derivative Waiting Time Class consisting of:

      "all members of the certified Separate Pay and Pay
      Averaging Classes whose employment with Renzenberger ended
      at any time between August 1, 2011 and the date of
      certification of the Waiting Time Class";

   2. appointing named Plaintiff Michael Watson as representative
      of the derivative Waiting Time Class; and

   3. appointing Hayes Pawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes and Kye D.
      Pawlenko as class counsel for the derivative Waiting Time
      Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=D5a9HykS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          595 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounse.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Turner et, al. Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RAHSHUN TURNER, MONIQUE LEWIS, JOSHUA MILLS,
AND JAIME JARAMILLO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00355-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court at a hearing on December 19, 2016
at 2:00 p.m. for entry of an order certifying a class of:

Plaintiff class:

   "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
   incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails"; and

Plaintiff subclass:

   "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
   incarcerated in the San Bernardino County jails and who have
   a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined
   under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section
   504 of the Rehabilitation Act".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for certifying the named
Plaintiffs as representatives of the Plaintiff Class and Subclass
and their counsel of record as counsel for the Plaintiff Class and
Subclass.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ak38pl5X

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Margot Mendelson, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280 2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280 2704
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  mmendelson@prisonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Martin H. Dodd, Esq.
          Jamie L. Dupree, Esq.
          Jaime G. Touchstone, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN DUPREE
          DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
          180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 399 3840
          Facsimile: (415) 399 3838
          E-mail: mdodd@fddcm.com
                  jdupree@fddcm.com
                  jtouchstone@fddcm.com


SHK MANAGEMENT: "Tan" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHOO LEE TAN a/k/a Molly Tan, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHK MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a AKA
Central Park Hotel; and d/b/a Korman Communities, Inc.; STEVEN H.
KORMAN, LAWRENCE KORMAN, BRADLEY I. KORMAN, MARK KORMAN,
KATHLEEN M. PALMEN, ROBERT S GROSSMAN, JAQUELINE AUSTIN a/k/a
Jackie Austin, MARIZELA ALFARO, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09302
(S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2016), alleges violations of the Federal
Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Shk Management, Inc.'s line of business includes the operation of
apartment buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324


SHUTTERFLY INC: Sued by Monroy for Storing Biometric Identifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO MONROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SHUTTERFLY, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-10984 (N.D. Ill.,
November 30, 2016), accuses the Company of violating the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing and using
the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals'
biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed
written consent.

Shutterfly is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Redwood
City, California.  Shutterfly operates several e-commerce and
social networking websites that offer a wide range of electronic
and print-based photo storage and photo sharing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
          E-mail: kshamberg@litedepalma.com
                  isalam@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Meredith S. Lierz, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


STATE FARM: In-House Counsel Plays Key Role in Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that if
State Farm's dark money got a state Supreme Court justice elected,
then Shepherd could be the Dark Shadow who helped bring about the
outcome.

It started with his work on the executive committee of the ICJL,
which operates its own PAC, called JUSTPAC.  After founding the
ICJL, Shepherd and a co-founder hired Edward Murnane to be
president.

Four years later came the first round in what would become a
nearly 20-year legal battle.  In Avery v. State Farm, more than 4
million State Farm policyholders, led by a plaintiff named Michael
Avery, filed a class action suit in Illinois state court accusing
State Farm of approving the use of lower-quality parts for
repairs, contrary to its policy language.  The jury agreed, and
after the trial judge tacked on $600 million in punitive damages,
the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $1.2 billion in the breach of
contract suit.

An outraged State Farm appealed.  The state appeals court affirmed
the judgment, but reduced it slightly to $1.05 billion. The author
of that opinion was Justice Gordon Maag of the Fifth District
Appellate Court, who all but put a target on his back for State
Farm.  Again the insurance company appealed the Avery judgment,
this time to the Illinois Supreme Court, where it was argued in
May 2003.  But the court delayed its ruling for more than two
years.

During the delay, the high court had a seat to fill. Judge Maag, a
favorite of trial lawyers but not of State Farm, ran for it. So,
according to the RICO complaint, State Farm went in search of its
own candidate to oppose Maag and hopefully support its pending
appeal of the $1.05 billion judgment.  It found Illinois trial
judge Lloyd Karmeier.

The company then allegedly worked through Shepherd and Murnane,
who became the other named defendant in the RICO action . The
complaint alleges that Shepherd, Murnane and the ICJL "functioned
collectively as State Farm's vehicle to: a) recruit Karmeier as a
candidate, b) direct Karmeier's campaign, c) lend credibility to
that campaign via endorsement and d) assure that Karmeier's
campaign was well-funded."

ICJL aided Judge Karmeier with in-kind services and financial
support funneled through its JUSTPAC. Murnane, the ICJL president,
also served as the treasurer of JUSTPAC.  He acted as Karmeier's
de facto campaign chief, the suit claims, taking his marching
orders from Shepherd.  In briefs State Farm has denied Shepherd's
involvement, disputed that Murnane ran Karmeier's campaign and
called its campaign contributions "minimal."
Both the ICJL and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are listed as
unnamed co-conspirators in the RICO suit.  Because the case is
ongoing, even though it is not a party to the suit, U.S. Chamber
spokesman Justin Hakes said that the chamber cannot comment on its
political contribution policies or on being named a co-conspirator
in the suit.

Judge Karmeier handily won the election in 2004.  The Avery
plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify Judge Karmeier from
participating in State Farm's appeal because it said that the
company and its employees had made direct contributions amounting
to $350,000 to Judge Karmeier's campaign.

State Farm scoffed at the $350,000 figure in its brief. It accused
plaintiffs of "grossly misrepresenting the magnitude of State
Farm's financial support . . . for Karmeier's campaign." It argued
that its support "consisted of quite modest contributions" and
said that the $350,000 figure was 'incorrect and meritless." The
court refused to disqualify Judge Karmeier, and he declined to
recuse himself.

In 2005, in a split decision, the Illinois Supreme Court
overturned the billion-dollar Avery judgment.  As expected, Judge
Karmeier voted with the majority, in State Farm's favor.  The
plaintiffs claim that Karmeier's participation tainted the entire
vote.  Says Belth, the insurance professor: "I thought what State
Farm allegedly did amounted to a subversion of the Illinois court
system."

Still the policyholders did not give up.  They moved for a
rehearing, but the state court denied their motion without
comment.  They petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, but it refused.
Then something happened out of the blue -- the justices in 2010
decided, in a West Virginia case with remarkably similar facts to
Avery, except that the big contributor was a coal company -- that
the 14th Amendment's due process clause can require a judge to
recuse himself.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.  It says that
recusal is required not only when actual bias is shown or when the
judge has an economic interest in the case's outcome, but also
when a case contains "extreme facts" that create a probability of
bias.

Then Justice Kennedy offered some advice to courts.  He wrote, "We
conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias -- based on
objective and reasonable perceptions 00 when [one] with a personal
stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate
influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or
directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending
or imminent."

Justice Kennedy's opinion then described a test for recusal.  "The
inquiry," it states, "centers on the contribution's relative size
in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the
campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent
effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election."  The
West Virginia judge was ordered to recuse himself -- and the Avery
plaintiffs' hopes soared.


SUNDAY RILEY: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunday Riley Modern
Skincare, LLC. The case is titled Helena Armstrong and Lynn Moore,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Sunday
Riley Modern Skincare, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09329-
ALC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

Sunday Riley is in the cosmetics, perfumes, and hair products
business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SUNRISE FAMILY: Ellis Moves Certification of Two FLSA Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Ellis, Dana Davis, Judy Swank, Brenda Phillips, and
JoEllen Conway, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TIFFANY ELLIS,
et al. for themselves and all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE
FAMILY HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01088-ALM-TPK
(S.D. Ohio), move, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
entry of an order conditionally certifying their proposed
collective FLSA classes defined as:

     Collective Action Subclass 1: All current and former Office
     Staff Members employed by Defendants, for 3 years prior to
     the date of filing this action through the present, who were
     paid on an hourly basis, and who did not receive overtime
     payment at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
     rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of
     40, including work completed while "on call;" and

     Collective Action Subclass 2: All current and former Home
     Health Aides employed by Defendants from January 1, 2015
     through the present who were paid on an hourly basis, and
     who did not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and
     one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
     worked in a workweek in excess of 40.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to implement a procedure whereby
Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S.
Mail and e-mail) to Plaintiffs' two proposed subclasses, and to
require the Defendants to identify all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TRANSNATIONAL FOODS: Faces "Lejbman" Suit in S.D. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transnational Foods,
Inc. The case is captioned Vivian Lis Lejbman, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Transnational Foods, Inc., a Florida corporation; and Conservas
Cerqueira, S.A., a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-25023-CMA (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2016). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.

Transnational Foods is a US-based food vendor company known for
offering leading supermarkets, wholesalers, dollar stores,
convenience stores and distributors a wide range of products
through its own brands or through private labels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Paul Gitkin, Esq.
          Salpeter Gitkin, LLP
          One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467 8622
          Facsimile: (954) 467 8623
          E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com


TWO JINNS INC: Parties Seek Approval of "Shelby" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GAYLA SHELBY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TWO JINNS, INC. DBA
ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS (C.D. Cal.),
move the Court for preliminary approval of the parties' class
action settlement.

Specifically, through the Motion, the Plaintiff moves for
certification of a settlement class, appointment of class counsel
and class representatives, preliminary approval of the Parties'
proposed settlement, and approval of the proposed plan to provide
notice to the class.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 30, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F21zDhts

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert W. Hicks, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Wright, Esq.
          ROBERT W. HICKS & ASSOCIATES
          14510 Big Basin Way, Suite 151
          Saratoga, CA 95070
          Telephone: (619) 846-4333
          Facsimile: (619) 236-3413
          E-mail: rhicks@rwhlaw.com
                  kwright@rwhlaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: K. Fellgren Sues Over Prescription Bogus Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
UnitedHealth Group Inc. plan participant has filed suit against
the insurance company for allegedly overcharging for prescription
drugs after New Orleans television station Fox 8 revealed the
findings of its investigations into prescription drug costs.

In a segment entitled "Medical Wa$te," Fox 8's Lee Zurick
investigated the "rising costs of prescription meds and
questionable practices by the pharmaceutical and insurance
industries."

The class action complaint filed by Kathy L. Fellgren on Nov. 15
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is at
least the third lawsuit in roughly six weeks filed in connection
with UnitedHealth's relationship with pharmacy benefit manager
OptumRx.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that UnitedHealth and OptumRx
charge "hidden bogus fees" to customers whose prescriptions cost
less than the policyholders' copayment.  If the copayment amount
is more than the retail price of a prescription drug, the class
action complaint alleges that UnitedHealth and OptumRx "claw back"
the extra amount.  The lawsuit alleges these clawed back amounts
are "pure, undisclosed profits."

"These excess payments by patients for their prescription drugs
are collected by benefit defendants, who have concocted a scheme
to unlawfully pocket the difference between the amount the patient
is required to pay at the pharmacy counter and the actual price of
the drug," the complaint said.

Some pharmacy benefit managers often collect for themselves more
than the prescription costs, while the patient's insurance plan
provides no benefit to the patient, the complaint alleges.

In addition to the alleged clawback scheme, Ms. Fellgren also
claims that UnitedHealth is employing "gag clauses," which require
pharmacists not to tell their patients how much their prescription
drugs actually cost and prohibits them from providing lower-cost
alternatives to their patients or disparaging the insurance
company or pharmacy benefit manager in any way.

Since pharmacies that violate the gag clauses could potentially
lose hundreds of thousands of customers, "most pharmacists have
concealed the practice," the lawsuit said.

"Americans who go to the pharmacy for needed medications expect to
be charged a fair price, especially if insurance is involved," the
complaint said.  "Indeed, the majority of Americans enroll in or
purchase insurance plans specifically to reduce the cost of their
medications and to reduce their out-of-pocket expenses for what is
often life-saving care."

Other lawsuits were filed on Oct. 4 and Oct. 14 in connection with
UnitedHealth's relationship with OptumRx, and Cigna Corp. and
Humana have been the targets of lawsuits containing similar
allegations to the one filed by Ms. Fellgren.

All of these complaints cite Fox 8's investigation into health
insurance clawbacks.  The station said the investigation revealed
that some insured patients would pay less for the prescription
drugs in question if they had not had prescription coverage at
all.

All of the known lawsuits filed against UnitedHealth, Cigna and
Humana assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

In response to possible overcharging schemes, Louisiana Gov. John
Bel Edwards signed legislation in June that attempts to curb
overpayments for prescription drugs.

The class in Fellgren is seeking restitution, monetary damages,
injunctive relief and/or other available remedies for losses
suffered.


VOLVO: Suit Over Sunroof Leak Still Trying to Get Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Volvo
leaking sunroof lawsuit is still trying to reach class-action
certification, six years after the original sunroof drain lawsuit
was filed in August 2010.

Volvo and owners are still fighting in court over alleged leaking
sunroofs in the 2004-present Volvo S40, S60, S80, V70 vehicles,
2005-present Volvo V50 sport wagons and 2003-present Volvo XC 90
SUVs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of current and former owners and
lessees of the subject vehicles allegedly at risk of water damage
due to leaking sunroofs.  The lawsuit alleges water should stay
outside the vehicles but instead enters the passenger
compartments, causing damage to carpets, electronics, sensors and
anything in the path of the invading water.

Owners report an assortment of vehicle parts that are damaged by
the intruding water, including various control modules, hydraulic
units, pumps, pressure generator assemblies, yaw rate sensors,
lateral acceleration sensors and wheel sensors.

The Volvo sunroofs have electronic sliding glass panels with
drainage systems made of holes and tubes to prevent water from
intruding into the passenger compartments.  Although the drain
tubes should direct outside water to the underside of the
vehicles, the plaintiffs say debris can clog the drains and direct
water into the vehicles.

Lead plaintiff Joanne Neale says her 2005 Volvo V50 suffered from
water damage to the interior carpet, causing a "sloshing" sound
when driving around corners or hitting the brakes.

With 32,000 on the V50, Neale took the vehicle to her dealer and
was told the leaking sunroof was to blame but the warranty
wouldn't cover the repairs because the damage was caused by an
"outside influence."  The plaintiff claims her only choice was to
pay the $592 repair bill.

The plaintiffs claim Volvo has known about the leaking sunroofs
for years but concealed that knowledge from consumers.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the Volvo vehicles typically
suffer from leaking sunroofs shortly after the warranties expire,
leaving customers with the expense of repairs.

Many Volvo owners have complained about the prospect of paying
thousands of dollars to keep the vehicles safe to drive.

"Water leaked into my vehicle through the sunroof, destroyed the
computer and air airbag system.  The carpets are soaked with
standing water sitting in the body of the front passenger side of
the vehicle.  I took my vehicle to the dealership and was told the
sunroof drainage tubes where clogged.  I was then quoted a price
for repairs which totaled in excess of $2000."  -- 2006 Volvo S40
owner / Virginia Beach, Virginia

Separately, another S40 owner said they paid $1,000 just to keep
vital systems functioning while driving.

"Vehicle passenger rear floor flooding continuously.  One day the
windshield wipers wouldn't turn off and none of the interior
electrical equipment would work, no power windows or locks.  Drove
to Volvo, they stated clogged sunroof drain and that floormat had
affected the ECM under the steering column. They cleared drain and
cleaned floor for $1K. Very scary." -- 2006 Volvo S40 owner /
Columbus, Ohio

According to the lawsuit, Volvo equips the vehicles with an
important safety feature called Dynamic Stability and Traction
Control used to drive during hazardous weather.  However, owners
claim the system is just one of many that can experience outages
and problems once water enters the vehicles.

Volvo owners say they weren't told the sunroof drain tubes needed
maintenance, something the owner of a 2004 XC90 says they wish
they would have known.

"Today, we learned our Volvo XC90's yaw rate sensor has failed.
The root cause was water leaking into the passenger side of the
car due to blocked moonroof (I.e. sunroof) drains, which shorted
the yaw rate sensor.  This impaired the electronic stability
control and brakes of our Volvo, putting us at risk of accident.
Even though easy and inexpensive regular maintenance would prevent
expensive damage, neither the Volvo user manual nor maintenance
service operations guides mention the need. The damage we and
others have suffered was completely preventable." -- 2004 Volvo
XC90 owner / Mountain View, California

The plaintiffs say Volvo sent its dealerships technical service
bulletins warning dealers about customers who complain about
leaking sunroofs and the damage caused by waterlogged interiors.
But Volvo plaintiffs claim even when the automaker issued a
technical service bulletin to its dealers in 2005 concerning the
sunroof drain tubes, dealers forced customers to cover the cost of
new hoses.

After the sunroof leak lawsuit was filed in 2010, Volvo owners
finally won class-action certification in 2013 for six states:
California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New
Jersey, but in 2015 a court reversed the ruling.  In reversing
class-action certification, the Third Circuit declared the owner's
claims were different than the claims listed in the class-action
certification documents.

Six years later and Volvo owners are still trying to convince the
judge the lawsuit should be certified as a class-action.  Volvo
and owners have battled over everything, including testimony of
experts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs.

In its fight against certification, Volvo told the judge there is
no way to prove every vehicle owner experienced damage from water
and it would be impossible to prove damage was caused by a leaking
sunroof.

The Volvo leaking sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey - Neale, et al. v. Volvo Cars
of North America LLC, et al.

The owners are represented by Caddell & Chapman, Crowley Norman
LLP, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC,
Fisher Boyd Brown & Huguenard, McCuneWright LLP, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC, and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah.


WALLACE RUSH: Thomas Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
De'Marcus Thomas moves the Court to conditionally certify the
lawsuit titled DE'MARCUS THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC., Case No. 3:16-
cv-00572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), as a collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks an order allowing notice to be sent to members
of a class of all individuals, who were formerly or are currently
employed by the Defendant in the state of Louisiana and who have
not been compensated for regular wages and have not been
compensated the overtime rate of one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of 40 hours
per work week, and for any employee for which the Defendant failed
to maintain and preserve payroll records or other records,
containing, without limitation, the total hours worked by each
class member each workday and total hours worked by each class
member each workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen M. Hair, Esq.
          VARADI, HAIR, & CHECKI
          909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 684-5200
          Facsimile: (504) 613-6351
          E-mail: hair@vhclaw.com

               - and -

          David Vicknair, Esq.
          Chris Meeks, Esq.
          SCOTT, SEVIN & VICKNAIR
          3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1130
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 264-1057
          Facsimile: (504) 264-5557
          E-mail: david@ssv-law.com
                  chrism@ssv-law.com


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal Filed in Pennsylvania Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Braun, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Appellant 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, Appellant v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and Sam's Club an operating segment of Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3633-EDA-2016 (Penn. Super. Ct.,
Dec 2, 2016), is an appeal filed before the Pennsylvania Superior
Court from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No.
2:15-cv-04361-DDP-FFM (Phil Cty. Ct., Nov. 3, 2016).

Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is represented by:

          McBride, Maureen Murphy, Esq.
          Cunningham, John J., IV, Esq.
          Telephone: (610) 430-8000

Appellant Michelle Braun and Dolores Hummel is represented by:

          Donovan, Michael D., Esq.
          1055 Westlakes, Dr 155
          Berwyn, PA
          Telephone: (610) 647 6067


WCI COMMUNITIES: Bushansky Questions Efforts to Sell to Lennar
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., KEITH E. BASS, STEPHEN D.
PLAVIN, PATRICK J. BARTELS, JR., MICHELLE MACKAY, DARIUS G. NEVIN,
CHARLES C. REARDON, CHRISTOPHER E. WILSON, LENNAR CORPORATION,
MARLIN BLUE LLC, and MARLIN GREEN CORP., Case No. 12947- (Del. Ch.
Ct., November 29, 2016), is a stockholder class action brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of WCI for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the efforts to sell the
Company to Lennar through its wholly-owned subsidiaries LLC Sub
and Corporate Sub.

WCI is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Bonita Springs, Florida.  The Company is a lifestyle
community developer and luxury homebuilder of single- and multi-
family homes and luxury high-rise tower units.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Lennar is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
located in Miami, Florida.  Lennar was founded in 1954 and is one
of the nation's largest builders of affordable move-up and
retirement homes.  LLC Sub is a Delaware limited liability company
and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Lennar.  Defendant
Corporate Sub is a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Lennar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
          901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                  dmurray@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
                  kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


WELLS FARGO: "Stanton" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nadine Stanton, individually and
as representative of all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
the Defendant, Case No. 16-CA010247, was removed from the 13th
Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, FL, to the U.S. District
Court for Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-03318-JSM-JSS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr.

Nadine Stanton, individually and as representative of all persons
similarly situated is represented by:

          Anthony Garcia, Esq.
          AG LAW, INC.
          742 S Village Cir
          Tampa, FL 33606-2563
          Telephone: (813) 259 9555
          Facsimile: (813) 254 9555
          E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Hood, Esq.
          LEITMAN SIEGAL & PAYNE, PC
          600 N 20th St., Suite 400
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2601
          Telephone: (205) 251 5900

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Ave N
          PO Box 11310
          Birmingham, AL 35202
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326 3332
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

Wells Fargo & Company and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. are
represented by:

          Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq.
          Robert Eric Bilik, Esq.
          Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          50 N Laura St. Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798 3200
          Facsimile: (904) 798 3207
          E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  ebilik@mcguirewoods.com
                  sfhollad@mcguirewoods.com


WESTERN RECYCLERS: "Poullard" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. POULLARD, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN RECYCLERS, INC., DBA
AMERICAN RECYCLER, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03545 (S.D. Tex.,
December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a clothing recycling company. It collects donated
clothes around the city and sells them for a profit, giving half
of the proceeds to local charities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Center
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Fax: (713) 222-6739


WEX INC: Court Denies Swinter Group's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Ross entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit captioned SWINTER GROUP, INC. v. WEX, INC., d/b/a WEX
FLEET ONE, et al., Case No. 4:16-CV-01464 JAR (E.D. Mo.), denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and to stay ruling and briefing on the Motion.

Judge Ross also stated that the matter will be set for a Rule 16
conference by separate order.

Swinter Group, Inc. brings the putative class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, also known as the "Junk Fax Act."  The action was
originally filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of St.
Charles County, Missouri, and timely removed to the Court on
September 15, 2016.

The Plaintiff has filed the Motion to certify this class and to
stay ruling and briefing thereon until completion of discovery:

   All persons in the United States who on or after four years
   prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent by or on
   behalf of Defendants a telephone facsimile message of material
   advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
   property, goods, or services, (2) with respect to whom
   Defendants cannot provide evidence of prior express invitation
   or permission for the sending of such faxes, and (3) either
   (a) with whom Defendants did not have an established business
   relationship, or (b) the fax identified in subpart (1) of this
   definition (i) did not display a clear and conspicuous opt-out
   notice on the first page stating that the recipient may make a
   request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any
   future advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine or
   machines and that failure to comply, within 30 days, with such
   a request meeting the requirements under 47 C.F.R.
   Section 64.1200(a)(4)(v) is unlawful, (ii) lacked a telephone
   number for sending the opt-out request, or (iii) lacked a
   facsimile number for sending the opt-out request.

"Numerous courts in this District have opted to deny these early
motions to certify without prejudice to refiling at the
appropriate time rather than permit the motions to pend
indefinitely. See e.g., Prater v. Medicredit, Inc., 301 F.R.D.
398, 401 (E.D. Mo. 2014)...)," Judge Ross opined.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/D4UQOF

Plaintiff Swinter Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Robert Schultz, III, Esq.
          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com
                  reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com

Defendant Wex, Inc., is represented by:

          David P. Stoeberl, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854-8602
          Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
          E-mail: dps@carmodymacdonald.com

               - and -

          James F. Bogan, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Fisher, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA, 30309-4528
          Telephone: (404) 815-6467
          Facsimile: (404) 541-3133
          E-mail: Jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  JFisher@kilpatricktownsend.com


WHOLESOME GOURMET: Faces "Valentin" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS VALENTIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were formerly or are presently employed by
WHOLESOME GOURMET MARKET, INC. and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by WHOLESOME GOURMET MARKET, INC.,
Plaintiffs, v. WHOLESOME GOURMET MARKET, INC. and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by WHOLESOME GOURMET
MARTKET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06657 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 1, 2016), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations to recover unpaid overtime compensation.

WHOLESOME GOURMET MARKET, INC. --
http://www.wholesomegourmetmarket.com/-- describes itself as a
classic diner in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Newhouse, Esq.
     Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
     Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080


* Class Actions Over Unpaid Overtime Gain Traction in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin R. Lambert, Esq. -- lambertj@bennettjones.com -- and
Christine Plante, Esq. -- plantec@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett
Jones LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on October 12,
2016, a former GoodLife personal trainer filed a class action
lawsuit for $60 million in damages under Ontario's Class
Proceeding Acts, 1992.  The proposed class members include current
and former non-managerial employees of GoodLife employed in
Ontario since October 2014.  The Action alleges, among other
things, that GoodLife:

   -- failed to maintain accurate records of all actual hours
worked;
   -- failed to advise employees of entitlement to overtime pay;
   -- imposed an unlawful overtime policy; and
   -- required and permitted employees to work more hours than
scheduled, but failed to pay those regular and overtime hours.

This is one of a number of recent high-profile and high-stakes
class actions by employees seeking compensation for unpaid
overtime.  In July 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
approved the settlement of two unpaid overtime class actions filed
by BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and Bank of Nova Scotia investment
advisors (Rosen v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2016 ONSC 4752, and
Fulawka v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2016 ONSC 1576). In both cases, the
employers agreed to create a compensation fund ($12 million for
BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and $93.3 million for Bank of Nova Scotia)
and pay the class members' legal fees.

These types of class actions have been more popular in the United
States, and entrepreneurial Canadian class actions counsel appear
to be taking note.

In the United States, the oilfield services industry is a current
target for employment class actions.  The common use of blended
day rates, independent contractors, and time off in lieu of
overtime policies make the industry susceptible to these types of
claims, particularly because these practices are often not
properly implemented by employers.

In Alberta, many employees and contractors would not have been
eager to either initiate or participate in such a class action
because of reputational risk and the risk of being "blacklisted"
by the industry.  However, now that many oilfield workers are out
of jobs, these disincentives may not be as great.  Time will tell
if the combination of an increasingly entrepreneurial Alberta-
based class actions bar and out of work oilfield workers leads to
an increase in this type of class action litigation.


* Options for Challenging Class Action Authorization Reduced
------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvie Rodrigue, Esq. -- srodrigue@torys.com -- and Marie-Eve
Gingras, Esq. -- mgingras@torys.com -- of Torys LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, report that in 2016, the Quebec Court of Appeal has
allowed no less than five appeals from judgments that refused to
authorize class actions.  In Charles v. Boiron Canada inc., Sibiga
v. Fido Solutions inc., Lambert (Gestion Peggy) v. Ecolait ltee,
Blouin v. Parcs eoliens la Seigneurie de Beaupre et, s.e.n.c., and
Masella v. TD Bank Financial Group, the province's highest court
overturned the decisions of the Superior Court and authorized
these class proceedings.  These decisions, which follow the
Supreme Court of Canada's recent trend of advocating a broad and
liberal interpretation of the four criteria for authorizing class
actions, once again reduce the burden on plaintiffs in Quebec.
Although it is still possible to successfully challenge a class
action at the authorization stage, it is clear that the number of
options for challenging authorizations has once again been
reduced.

This is particularly true in the context of consumer law cases. In
both Sibiga (related to the allegedly excessive or abusive nature
of international mobile data roaming fees charged by wireless
telephone service providers to their customers) and Boiron
(related to allegedly misleading or deceptive advertising
concerning a homeopathic product), the Court of Appeal has
lessened the already low burden of proof applicable to the colour
of right and to the ability to properly represent class members
criteria.

What You Need To Know

Colour of Right. It is still possible to argue that the plaintiff
has failed to establish that he has an arguable case, especially
in the absence of some evidence to support the allegations
contained in the application for authorization.  However, at the
authorization stage, the court must not decide the substantive
issues in the dispute and must be limited to assessing whether the
conclusions sought flow logically from the facts alleged and
whether the allegations in the application are sustained by the
evidence submitted in support thereof.

The colour of right criterion should be assessed in light of the
proposed representative's personal cause of action.
If there are contradictory facts between the defendant's
authorized evidence and the facts alleged in the application for
authorization or the evidence filed in support thereof, the
authorization judge must accept the facts alleged by the plaintiff
as proven, unless they seem improbable or obviously inaccurate.

In proposed consumer law class actions, the plaintiff is not
required to submit his/her contract as evidence at the
authorization stage in order to demonstrate an arguable case,
insofar as the contract is properly alleged, that its existence is
not disputed, and that the details of the contractual obligations
it provides are not essential for the assessment of whether the
conclusions sought by the plaintiff flow logically from the facts
alleged.

Description and Composition of the Class. Despite recent case law,
a proposed class that contains a limited number of members remains
solid ground for challenging an application for authorization to
institute a class action.  Moreover, the only first instance
judgment denying such an application that has been affirmed by the
Court of Appeal in 2016 has been upheld on this basis: the
proposed class only had 12 members, which is insufficient to
justify the authorization of a class action.  A circular,
imprecise or subjective description of the class, as well as the
lack of prima facie evidence relating to the existence or
composition of the class, are also possible grounds for challenge.

Representative Plaintiff.

The appearance of a conflict of interest between the plaintiff and
the members of the proposed class remains a valid ground for
challenge.

In class actions outside the consumer law context, it is still
possible to oppose an application for authorization on the basis
that the plaintiff does not have the competence to act as a
representative, especially if no reasonable investigation has been
conducted with regards to the existence of the class.

In consumer law class actions, the requirements relating to the
competence of the class members' representative are (even more)
minimal.  A proposed representative can properly represent class
members although the proceedings have been initiated by class
counsel.

The bankruptcy of the plaintiff does not mean that he/she does not
possess the interest to act as representative: the plaintiff can
represent the class members despite his/her bankruptcy.13


* Securities Class Actions on the Rise in U.S., AGCS Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Actuarial Post reports that new risks such as cyber incidents or
data privacy, rising regulator and shareholder activism and the
influence of third party litigation funders are putting corporate
leaders under more pressure than ever of falling foul of
investigations, fines or prosecution over alleged wrongdoing, says
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), a leading provider of
Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance globally.

   -- Liability of directors' and officers' (D&O) increasing, as
shareholder and regulator activism rises globally

   -- Growing trend to seek personal legal action against
executives. Non-compliance with laws and regulations now top cause
of D&O loss. Average claim for breach of trust and care is $1m+,
AGCS analysis shows

   -- Senior Executives in the UK could face prosecution in future
for offenses including fraud and money laundering carried out by
staff

   -- Emerging perils include cyber and data privacy as well as
reputational risks such as climate change impact.  M&A activity
remains key driver of D&O claims

Directors and officers are walking a managerial tightrope as
executive liability continues to increase annually.  There is a
growing trend towards seeking punitive and personal legal action
against executives for failure to follow regulations and standards
which could result in costly investigations, criminal prosecutions
or civil litigation putting the company's assets, or their own, at
risk, AGCS says in its new report D&O Insurance Insights:
Management liability today.  "While the legal landscape differs
strongly from country to country, increasing shareholder or
regulatory action has become a global phenomenon that needs to be
given top priority within companies' internal risk management
departments," says Bernard Poncin, Global Head of Financial Lines,
AGCS.

D&O litigation - lengthier and more costly

According to AGCS analysis, non-compliance with laws and
regulations is now the top cause of D&O claims[1] by number,
followed by negligence and maladministration/lack of controls. The
average D&O claim for breach of duty costs over $1 million (EUR1
million).  However, in large corporate liability cases D&O claims
can be valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. AGCS
observes a general trend for D&O claims to be dismissed or
resolved more slowly, meaning lengthier litigation, increased
defense costs and higher settlement expectations.  For example,
the average US securities class action case takes between three
and six years to complete while legal defense costs average around
$10 million, rising to $100 million for the largest cases. In the
past six years defense costs have almost doubled for large D&O
claims in the US.  The influence of third party litigation funding
is also changing the global litigation map, with it being pivotal
in the development of collective actions against financial
institutions and commercial entities and their directors and
officers.

Management in the UK could be prosecuted for failure to prevent
fraud by staff

Speaking at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic
Crime in September this year, the Attorney General reiterated the
Prime Minister's priority of expanding economic opportunities -
meaning businesses "of all sizes" should be better held
accountable for their failures.  The Attorney General also
restated the intention to consult on extending the criminal
offence of 'failure to prevent' to other economic crimes such as
fraud and money laundering so that firms are properly held to
account for criminal activity that takes place within them.

"If a new corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime
is introduced in the UK, it will represent a huge expansion in
corporate criminal liability," said Terry FitzGerald, Head of
Commercial D&O and Financial Institutions, UK at Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty.  "Although these particular reforms are
focused on corporate liability, there is, of course, a broader
drive to hold individuals accountable in the event of criminal
conduct or regulatory breaches at their companies.  In recent
years, increasing emphasis has been placed on personal
accountability across all business sectors, with Deferred
Prosecution Agreements now a means to further increase cooperation
with regulators and encourage best practice.  Reform in this area
could ultimately have a fundamental impact on the risks faced by
senior executives."

The risks and potential liabilities of senior executives have
never been greater

Litigation against companies and their officers is on the rise. In
the US, the number of security class action filings is rising and,
at mid-year, was on course for its highest annual total for 12
years[2].  Many Asian countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand
and Singapore are also moving towards a more litigious culture.
The increase in claims has also been pronounced in Germany where
the number of D&O claims for AGCS alone has tripled in the past 20
years.

Cyber risks on the board agenda

The landscape for executives is further complicated by a number of
emerging perils, such as liability around cyber-attacks and data
privacy.  In the US; several class actions have already been filed
related to data breaches.  Data protection rules around the world
are becoming increasingly tough, with severe penalties for non-
compliance.  As a consequence, AGCS experts anticipate cyber
security-related D&O litigation more widely in the US, but also in
Europe, the Middle East and Australia -- if there has been
negligence in any failure to protect data or a lack of controls.
"Many directors used to see cyber as an IT issue and not an
exposure for the board to consider," explains Emy Donavan,
Regional Head of Cyber Liability North America, AGCS.  "But there
is no escaping cyber risks and directors need to be adequately
informed, otherwise they will leave themselves exposed."

Other new management risks include negative disclosures or
allegations around environmental pollution, climate change and
modern slavery which could result in reputational risks and
shareholder activism, public outcry or governmental action.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) continue to be a key driver of D&O
litigation and is predicted to continue at rapid pace in future.
"M&A, but also divestitures, belong to the more riskier moments in
the life of a company," says Mr. Poncin.  "Expectations are always
high, and synergies are easier planned than realized."

Highly sophisticated risk management required
In order to tackle the increase in executive risk in future
directors need to develop a highly sophisticated risk management
culture.  Examples include instilling first-class cyber and IT
protection, keeping records of all information relevant to a
managerial role and maintaining open communication with
authorities, investors and employees.  Executives should ask tough
questions about compliance related topics such as sanctions,
embargoes, domicile registrations, price-fixing and fraud and also
learn more about "classic" D&O exposures such as M&A, capital
measures and IPOs.  The AGCS report contains best practice advice
and checklists outlining how executives can mitigate risk.

D&O insurance has become a regular part of companies risk
management in the past 20 years.  It provides financial protection
for managers against the consequences of actual or alleged
"wrongful acts".  Common D&O risk scenarios include HR issues,
shareholder actions, reporting or disclosure errors. Coverage does
not include fraudulent, criminal or intentional non-compliant acts
or cases where directors obtained illegal remuneration, or acted
for personal profit.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dropped as Defendant in "Perez"
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois granted without prejudice
General Electric Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction the case captioned SYLVIA PEREZ, Individually and as
Special Administrator of the Estate of Armando Perez, Plaintiffs,
v. AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Individually and as
Successor to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:16-CV-00842-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Sylvia Perez, Special Administrator of the Estate of
Decedent Armando Perez, brought the action against numerous
defendants for injuries her husband allegedly sustained from
asbestos exposure while serving in the United States Navy from
approximately 1944 to 1946.  On May 4, 2015, the decedent was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, which ultimately led to his death.

In granting GE's Motion, Judge Rosenstengel held that contrary to
Perez's argument, the language of Illinois' registration statutes
is more akin to the Connecticut statutes analyzed by the Second
Circuit in Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir.
2016), and the Delaware statutes analyzed in Genuine Parts Co. v.
Cepec, 137 A.3d 123 (Del. 2016).  Nothing in the statutes
expressly advises a foreign corporation that registration to do
business constitutes consent to the exercise of general
jurisdiction.  Given the inclusion of limiting language
("permitted by law") and the lack of any reference to
jurisdiction, the Court cannot say that Illinois' registration
statutes require a foreign corporation to consent to the general
jurisdiction of Illinois courts.  Thus, GE did not consent to
jurisdiction by registering to do business and appointing an agent
for service of process, as required by Illinois law to do business
in the state, Judge Rosenstengel held.

Defendants Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps also filed
motions to dismiss Count III (loss of consortium claim), which
Judge Rosenstengel denied after determining that to the extent
that Perez's loss of consortium claim seeks damages for injury to
the marriage sustained after her husband's injury but before his
death, "it is derivative of the surviving personal injury claims
and is not part of the wrongful death claim."  According to Judge
Rosenstengel, any recovery under the Wrongful Death Act for
injuries to the marriage sustained after her husband's death would
not compensate for injuries sustained before his death.  Thus,
Perez may bring her claim for loss of consortium for any injury to
the marriage suffered between the time of her husband's injury and
his death, Judge Rosenstengel concluded.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated December 2,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/EQzsxB from Leagle.com.

Sylvia Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, represented by James
R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster
et al..

Alfa-Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony D. Danhelka,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher T.
Gardino, Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd & Scott R.
Hunsaker, Tucker Ellis LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC, Jessica Schmit, HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony D. Danhelka,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Madeline V. Tzall,
Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Anita M. Kidd,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

SPX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Grabowski,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

General Electric Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Crane Co., Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond
R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita M.
Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Warren Pumps LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita M.
Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.

John Crane Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al..

Carrier Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher
T. Gardino, Segal, McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC, Jessica Schmit, HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita M.
Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Esq. -- bbultman@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP.

Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Larson King LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmates' Civil Rights Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motions for summary
judgment filed by defendants in the pro se prisoner's civil rights
actions styled DEWEY TERRY, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-01227-EMC (N.D. Calif.), and RICHARD L.
ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-
cv-04456-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

The amended complaint separately alleged that the Defendants
required Dewey Terry and Richard Arnold to clean and work in an
area containing lead paint and asbestos in May and early June
2012.  The amended complaint also alleged that defendants Philip
Earley and Gary Loredo "fail[ed] to disclose/enter onto the
Worker's Compensation forms exposure to Asbestos," and that
failure "resulted in a 'fraudulent and/or Incomplete Worker's
Compensation Claim.'"

Judge Chen found, among other things, that the inmates did not
present a claim to the Board that mentioned any intentional
concealment or fraud in the preparation of the worker's
compensation claim form.  The claim that the inmates did present
asserted only lead and asbestos exposure claims, and did not
mention any misrepresentation or other problem with the
preparation of the worker's compensation claim form.  Therefore,
any state law claim that is not barred by the rule that the
workers' compensation scheme is the exclusive remedy must be
dismissed because the inmates did not comply with the claim-
presentation requirement of the California Government Claims Act.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Mr. Terry dated
December 2, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/UjtNqY from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order with respect to Mr. Arnold dated
December 2, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/2F9k32 from
Leagle.com.

Dewey Terry, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Richard L. Arnold, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Phillip Earley, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy
Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy
Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy
Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Jeremy Young, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Robert Williams,
Kenneth R. Williams, Attorney at Law & Kyle Anthony Lewis,
Department of Justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues Talk with FFIC on Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, says it is continuing its talk with Fireman's
Fund Insurance Corporation over asbestos litigation 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation have been named
as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that
name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that
were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in
California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali
Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business
operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on
sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution
business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending
these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a
material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it
has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation.
Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named
will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however,
there can be no assurance in that regard.

"On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar Company, LLC bankruptcies. In its communications with
Kaanapali Land, Fireman's fund expressed its view that the
automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case bars Fireman's
Fund from making any payments to resolve the Kaanapali Land
asbestos claims because D/C Distribution is also alleging a right
to coverage under those policies for asbestos claims against it.
However, in the interim, Fireman's Fund advised that it presently
intends to continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject
to whatever reservations of rights may be in effect and subject
further to the policy terms. Fireman's Fund has also indicated
that to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's
Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases
through coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's
present intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali
Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay
order, the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies,
and prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali Land continues to
pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund in an attempt to resolve
the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine what
portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land
asbestos cases will be covered by insurance."

Kaanapali Land, LLC operates through two segments: property and
agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Continues to Defend A&F Suit at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
continues to defend itself against the insurance coverage lawsuit
filed by American & Foreign Insurance Company, according to
Kaanapali's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was
served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its
attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by
D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled
to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it
has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali
Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered
by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance
policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled
this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of
$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in
partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
$26,800, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts
owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law
firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-
related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately
two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant
number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could
withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will
deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the
Company will receive any material additional amounts in the
liquidation of D/C."

Kaanapali Land, LLC operates through two segments: property and
agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay remains pending in the bankruptcy case of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to Kaanapali's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2016.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion"). Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities. The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as
an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things,
insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the
D/C and Oahu Sugar Company, LLC bankruptcy estates. As noted
above, Kaanapali, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the
Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu
Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons,
Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay.
After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United
States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. In
March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order
finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to
the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal
the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a
number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to
proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining
insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other
things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to
explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate
their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained
subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for
further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further
proceedings on the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar Company, LLC bankruptcies
have reached out to each other to determine if there is any
interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu
Sugar and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance
policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may
take the form of a mediation or other format and involve some form
of resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's
Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future
insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into such
discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will
take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in
whole or in part."

Kaanapali Land, LLC operates through two segments: property and
agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westrock Co. Faces 693 Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Westrock Company faces approximately 693 asbestos-related personal
injury litigation as of September 30, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of September 30, 2016, there were approximately 693 lawsuits.
We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases. We believe that the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations."

WestRock Company manufactures and sells paper and packaging
solutions for the consumer and corrugated markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Ups Respirator Liabilities Reserve to $21M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation increased reserve for its estimated share of
liability for pending and future respirator claims by $13 million
to $21 million, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation (AO) in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO
brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection
with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in
certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities,
including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in
settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products
used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. In
exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

"Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.
The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation
("Aearo") in July 1995. Cabot agreed to have the subsidiary retain
certain liabilities associated with exposure to asbestos and
silica while using respirators prior to the 1995 transaction so
long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee of
$400,000. Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any time, in
which case it will assume the responsibility for and indemnify
Cabot against those liabilities which Cabot's subsidiary had
agreed to retain. We anticipate that we will continue to receive
payment of the $400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain these
liabilities for the foreseeable future. We have no liability in
connection with any products manufactured by Aearo after 1995.

"In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other parties are responsible
for significant portions of the costs of respirator liabilities,
leaving Cabot's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only
some of the pending cases. These parties include Aearo, AO, AO's
insurers, another former owner and its insurers, and a third-party
manufacturer of respirators formerly sold under the AO brand and
its insurers (collectively, with Cabot's subsidiary, the "Payor
Group").

"As of both September 30, 2016 and 2015, there were approximately
38,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in
connection with respiratory products. Cabot has contributed to the
Payor Group's defense and settlement costs with respect to a
percentage of pending claims depending on several factors,
including the period of alleged product use. In order to quantify
our estimated share of liability for pending and future respirator
liability claims, we have engaged, through counsel, the assistance
of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading
consulting firm in the field of tort liability valuation. The
methodology used by HR&A addresses the complexities surrounding
our potential liability by making assumptions about future
claimants with respect to periods of asbestos, silica and coal
mine dust exposure and respirator use. Using those and other
assumptions, HR&A estimates the number of future asbestos, silica
and coal mine dust claims that will be filed and the related costs
that would be incurred in resolving both currently pending and
future claims. On this basis, HR&A then estimates the value of the
share of these liabilities that reflect our period of direct
manufacture and our contractual obligations. During the three
months ended September 30, 2016, HR&A updated this estimate. Based
on the HR&A estimates, as of September 30, 2016, we increased our
reserve for our estimated share of liability for pending and
future respirator claims by $13 million to $21 million. The
increase reflects recent increases in certain defense and
indemnity costs. We made payments related to our respirator
liability of $3 million in fiscal 2016 and $2 million in each of
fiscal 2015 and 2014.

"Our current estimate of the cost of our share of existing and
future respirator liability claims is based on facts and
circumstances existing at this time. Developments that could
affect our estimate include, but are not limited to, (i)
significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) changes
in the rate of dismissals without payment of pending claims, (iii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iv)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(v) changes in the nature of claims received, (vi) changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) the financial
viability of members of the Payor Group, (viii) a change in the
availability of the insurance coverage of the members of the Payor
Group or the indemnity provided by AO's former owner, (ix) changes
in the allocation of costs among the Payor Group, and (x) a
determination that the assumptions that were used to estimate our
share of liability are no longer reasonable. We cannot determine
the impact of these potential developments on our current estimate
of our share of liability for these existing and future claims.
Accordingly, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing
and future claims could be different than the reserved amount."

Cabot Corporation -- http://www.cabotcorp.com/-- is a global
specialty chemicals and performance materials company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Has $116MM Asbestos Liability at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc., recorded estimated liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs of $116 million as of
September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 30, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants
in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos
containing materials. These cases have typically involved product
liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture,
sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained
asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. As of
September 30, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position is comprised of a
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
of $116 million, of which $7 million is recorded in other current
liabilities and $109 million is recorded in other noncurrent
liabilities.

"The Company's estimate of the liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs is based on the Company's historical
claim experience, and estimates of the number and resolution cost
of potential future claims that may be filed and is discounted to
present value from 2049 (which is the Company's reasonable best
estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which
asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates).
Asbestos related defense costs are included in the asbestos
liability. The Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also
impacts these estimates. The Company considers various trends and
developments in evaluating the period of time (the look-back
period) over which historical claim and settlement experience is
used to estimate and value claims reasonably projected to be made
through 2049. Annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of
its estimated liability for pending and future claims and defense
costs by evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed,
settled and dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In
addition to claims and settlement experience, the Company
considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
changes in legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's
defense strategy. The Company evaluates all of these factors and
determines whether a change in the estimate of its liability for
pending and future claims and defense costs is warranted.

"In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company changed its
accounting policy for accruing for defense costs for asbestos
related claims on a discounted basis. The Company's historical
accounting treatment for asbestos claim defense costs was to
accrue as incurred. The new policy is to record an accrual for all
future asbestos related defense costs which are determined to be
probable and estimable of being incurred. The Company believes
this new policy is preferable as it better reflects the economics
of settlement of the Company's asbestos claims, improves
comparability among the Company's peer group and provides greater
transparency to on-going operating results. These changes have
been reported through retrospective application of the new policy
to all periods presented. These changes did not have an impact to
any period presented on the consolidated statements of income.
The financial statement impact of this change for all periods
presented was an increase to other noncurrent liabilities of $68
million, an increase to other noncurrent assets of $27 million and
a decrease to retained earnings of $41 million.

In September 2016, in conjunction with the Tyco Merger, the par
value of the Company's common stock was changed from $1.00 per
share to $0.01 per share. This change resulted in a decrease to
common stock and corresponding increase in capital in excess of
par value in the consolidated statements of financial position and
is reported through retrospective application of the new par value
for all periods presented."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $148M Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International Plc has $148 million estimated
asbestos related net liability recorded on a discounted basis as
of September 30, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 30, 2016.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous
other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. These cases have typically involved product liability
claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were used with asbestos containing components.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position is $148 million. The
net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of $548 million, of which $35 million is
recorded in other current liabilities and $513 million is recorded
in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintains
separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance
recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial
position of $400 million, of which $41 million is recorded in
other current assets, and $359 million is recorded in other
noncurrent assets. Assets include $16 million of cash and $264
million of investments, which have all been designated as
restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at September 30, 2016 is $120 million. The
Company believes that the asbestos related liabilities and
insurance related receivables recorded as of September 30, 2016
are appropriate.

The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding
insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs
is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and
estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future
claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from
2069 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the
actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related
claims will be filed against Company affiliates). Asbestos related
defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The
Company's legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these
estimates. The Company considers various trends and developments
in evaluating the period of time (the look-back period) over which
historical claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and
value claims reasonably projected to be made through 2069.
Annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated
liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by
evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and
dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims
and settlement experience, the Company considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in
legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense
strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its
insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all
of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate
of its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs
or insurance receivable is warranted.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage
issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in
one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others,
and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the
determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later
portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect
the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related
matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of
insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.

Johnson Controls International plc, formerly Tyco International
plc, is a provider of security products and services, fire
detection and suppression products and services and life safety
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend a number of
cases alleging injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products, apparently based on its historic use of
vermiculite in certain products, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year September 30, 2016.

The Company states: "In many of these cases, the complaints are
not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with us or our
products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally
seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. We believe
that the claims against us are without merit and are vigorously
defending against them. It is not currently possible to reasonably
estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the cases and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in our consolidated
financial statements. We are reviewing agreements and policies
that may provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these
claims and are pursuing coverage under some of these agreements
and policies, although there can be no assurance of the results of
these efforts. There can be no assurance that these cases, whether
as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant
defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
branded consumer lawn and garden products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telecom Italia Directed to Pay Asbestos Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Italian court has issued a judgment directing Telecom Italia
S.p.A. to pay damages to people who were endangered as a result of
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 6-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the month
ended November 30, 2016.

The Company states, "In September 2014 the Ivrea (Piedmont, Italy)
Public Prosecutor's Office closed the investigation into the
alleged exposure to asbestos of 15 former employees of the company
"Ing. C. Olivetti S.p.A." (now Telecom Italia S.p.A.), "Olivetti
Controllo Numerico S.p.A", "Olivetti Peripheral Equipment S.p.A.",
"Sixtel S.p.A." and "Olteco S.p.A" and served notice that the
investigations had been concluded on the 39 people investigated
(who include former Directors of the aforementioned companies).

"On December 2014 the Ivrea Public Prosecutor's Office formulated
a request for 33 of the 39 people originally investigated to be
committed for trial, and at the same time asked that 6
investigations be archived.

"During the preliminary hearing, which started in April 2015,
Telecom Italia assumed the role of civilly liable party, after
being formally summonsed by all 26 civil parties (institutions and
natural persons) joined in the proceedings. At the end of the
preliminary hearing, 18 of the original 33 persons accused were
committed for trial. The trial started in November 2015, and, as
the party liable for damages, the Company has reached a settlement
agreement with 12 of the 18 individuals (heirs/injured
persons/family members) who are civil parties to the dispute and
they have, therefore, withdrawn the claim for damages against
Telecom Italia.

"In the judgement of first instance, in July 2016, 13 of the 18
defendants were found guilty, with sentences ranging from 1 year
to 5 years of imprisonment: four of the defendants were found not
guilty, and one case was dismissed for health reasons. The
defendants were also sentenced to compensate, jointly and
severally with the party liable for damages Telecom Italia, with
an overall sum of approximately EUR1.9 million as a provisional
payment to INAIL (the Italian Workers' Compensation Authority) and
6 heirs who were not part of the settlement. A generic judgement
to pay compensation for damages to the remaining damaged parties
(entities/unions/associations) was issued, although they must in
any case ask the civil court to quantify the damages. The reasons
for the judgement have not yet been made available. When the full
argument supporting the judgement is published, the Company will
consider what, if any, further action it should take to protect
its interests."

Telecom Italia S.p.A. operates fixed voice and data infrastructure
in Italy, and provides mobile network platforms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Faces 11,700 Cases at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company faces approximately 11,700
asbestos-related cases as of September 30, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year September 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is also named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability
claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of
products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege
premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed
to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically
names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.
The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases
has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in
a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to
continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company
settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all
asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September 30, 2016,
there were approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending
against the Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the consolidated balance sheets.
The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and
covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over
the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate
amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not
possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes, given the information currently available, that the
ultimate resolution of all known and anticipated future claims,
after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with
recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows."

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical and
biopharmaceutical products, and nuclear imaging agents in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Faces 5,800 Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maremont Corporation had approximately 5,800 pending asbestos-
related claims at September 30, 2016, according to Meritor, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year October 2, 2016.

The Company states, "Maremont, a subsidiary of Meritor,
manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953
through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin
Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont
in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Maremont had
approximately 5,800 and 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims at
September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Although Maremont has
been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue
dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits,
seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the
disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a
particular product. For these reasons, the total number of claims
filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining
Maremont's asbestos related liability."

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has $72MM Liabilities at Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------
Maremont Corporation had $72 million asbestos-related liabilities
at September 30, 2016, according to Meritor, Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year October 2, 2016.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves and corresponding asbestos-
related recoveries as of September 30, 2016, are summarized as
follows:

   Pending and future claims                      $70,000,000
   Billed but unpaid claims                         2,000,000
   Asbestos-related liabilities                   $72,000,000
   Asbestos-related insurance recoveries          $32,000,000

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont May Face Up to $83MM Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Maremont Corporation potentially faces $70 million to $83 million
asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten years, according
to Meritor, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year October 2, 2016.

Maremont engaged Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with extensive
experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation,
to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending
and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Although it
is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of
various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would
be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of
the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving
pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical
data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur
in the future.

As of September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of $70 million to $83
million. After consultation with Bates White, Maremont recognized
a liability for pending and future claims over the next ten years
of $70 million and $71 million as of September 30, 2016 and 2015,
respectively. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and future
claims is estimated based on the history of claims and expenses
for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an
established history with Maremont. Maremont recognized $2 million
of expense and $2 million of income in fiscal years 2016 and 2015,
respectively, associated with its annual valuation of asbestos-
related liabilities and receivables. Maremont has recognized
incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries
expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims
changes.

Assumptions: The following assumptions were made by Maremont after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

-- Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2026;

-- Maremont believes that the litigation environment could change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

-- On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending
and future claims will be at the level consistent with Maremont's
prior experience;

-- Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact
Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and

-- The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Recoveries: Maremont has historically had insurance that
reimburses a substantial portion of the costs incurred defending
against asbestos-related claims. The insurance receivable related
to asbestos-related liabilities was $32 million and $41 million as
of September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The receivable is
for coverage provided by one insurance carrier based on a
coverage-in-place agreement. Maremont currently expects to exhaust
the remaining limits provided by this coverage sometime in the
next ten years. The difference between the estimated liability and
insurance receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled
insurance coverage within the forecasted period and proceeds from
settled insurance policies.

Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance
carriers that management believed also provided coverage for
indemnity and defense costs. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont re-
initiated lawsuits against these carriers, seeking a declaration
of its rights to coverage for asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. During the
first quarter of fiscal year 2016, the dispute related to these
insurance policies was settled. As part of this settlement, on
December 12, 2015, Maremont received $17 million in cash, of which
$5 million was recognized as reduction in asbestos expense and $12
million was recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it
is required to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos
liability is not incurred. During the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2016, Maremont recognized an additional $9 million of the
cash settlement proceeds as a reduction in asbestos expense. As of
September 30, 2016, $3 million remained recorded as a liability to
the insurance carrier. The settlement also provides additional
recovery for Maremont if certain future defense and indemnity
spending thresholds are met.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the
company's financial condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Faces 3,200 AM Claims at Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell International had approximately 3,200 pending active
asbestos claims in lawsuits that name ArvinMeritor, Inc. (AM), as
defendants at September 30, 2016, according to Meritor, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year October 2, 2016.

ArvinMeritor, a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability
for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of
the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. Rockwell had
approximately 3,200 and 3,000 pending active asbestos claims in
lawsuits that name AM, together with many other companies, as
defendants at September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For
those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants.

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Had $61-Mil. Liabilities at Oct. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell International had $61 million asbestos-related
liabilities at September 30, 2016, according to Meritor, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year October 2, 2016.

The Rockwell legacy asbestos-related reserves and corresponding
asbestos-related recoveries at September 30, 2016, are summarized
as follows :

   Pending and future claims                     $60,000,000
   Billed but unpaid claims                       $1,000,000
   Asbestos-related liabilities                  $61,000,000
   Asbestos-related insurance recoveries         $27,000,000

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell May Face Up to $75MM PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell International may face $60 million to $75 million
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years, according to Meritor, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year October 2, 2016.

Pending and Future Claims: The company engaged Bates White LLC, a
consulting firm, to assist with determining whether it would be
possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and future
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As of
September 30, 2016, Bates White provided a reasonable and probable
estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities
of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over
the next ten years of $60 million to $75 million. After
consultation with Bates White, management recognized a liability
for pending and future claims over the next ten years of $60
million as of September 30, 2016 compared to $55 million as of
September 30, 2015. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Rockwell. The increase in the
estimated liability is primarily due to higher settlement values,
compared to the prior year. AM recognized a $2 million and $4
million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal years 2016 and
2015, respectively, associated with its annual valuation of
asbestos-related liabilities and receivables.

Assumptions: The following assumptions were made by the company
after consultation with Bates White and are included in their
study:

-- Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2026;

-- The company believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

-- On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for pending
and future claims will be at the level consistent with the
company's prior experience;

-- Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

-- The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

Recoveries: Rockwell has insurance coverage that management
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-
insurance retentions, for a significant portion of these claims.
In 2004, the company initiated litigation against certain of these
carriers to enforce the insurance policies. During the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2016, the company executed settlement
agreements with two of these carriers, thereby resolving the
litigation against those particular carriers. Pursuant to the
terms of one of those settlement agreements, the company received
$32 million in cash from an insurer, of which $10 million was
recognized as a reduction in asbestos expense, and $22 million was
recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it is required
to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos liability is
not ultimately incurred. Pursuant to the terms of a second
settlement agreement, the company recorded a $12 million
receivable to reflect expected reimbursement of future defense and
indemnity payments under a coverage-in-place arrangement with that
insurer. In addition to the coverage provided from the settlements
executed during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, the
company continues to maintain a receivable of $6 million related
to a previously executed coverage-in-place arrangement with other
insurers. The insurance receivables for Rockwell's asbestos-
related liabilities totaled $27 million and $14 million as of
September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Included in these
amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million at both September
30, 2016 and 2015, which are associated with policies in dispute.
Although the company continues to pursue litigation and believes
it has insurance coverage, the collection of the $9 million has
become doubtful; therefore, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2016, the company recorded a $9 million reserve.

Also, during the third quarter of fiscal year 2016, the company
reached a settlement relating to certain proofs of claim filed
under certain insurance policies with an insolvent insurer for $6
million (the "allowed claim"). On June 17, 2016, the company
entered into an assignment of claim ("Assignment") with a third
party to assign the allowed claim the company had against the
insolvent insurer. The Assignment was approved by the liquidator,
which resulted in the receipt by the company of $3 million and was
recognized as a reduction of selling, general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated statement of operations in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2016.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Rockwell could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Rockwell's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. provides drivetrain mobility and braking solutions
for original equipment (OE) manufacturers of trucks, trailers, and
specialty vehicles.  Rockwell International spins off its
automotive business in 1997, creating Meritor Automotive.  In
2000, Meritor Automotive and Arvin Industries merge to form
ArvinMeritor, Inc.  ArvinMeritor is a subsidiary of Meritor, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmates to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California dismissed PAUL ADAMS,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 16-1678-AB(C.D. Calif.), and
granted the motion for leave to amend.

Plaintiffs Paul Adams, Phillip L. Dorsey, and Ezequiel Monarrez,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, have filed a First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code,
section 1983, against California Correctional Institution, K.
Holland, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Jeffrey Beard, and Jerry G. Brown, alleging, among other things,
they were exposed to asbestos and contaminated water at CCI.  As a
result of their alleged injuries from both the asbestos exposure
and water contamination, the Plaintiffs seek, at minimum,
$1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive
damages awarded to each Plaintiff, as well an injunction requiring
an immediate evacuation of CCI and a lifetime of limitless medical
treatment.

According to the magistrate, the Plaintiffs have failed among
others, to allege a protected liberty or property interest for
which they have been deprived.  Magistrate Kato held that the
Plaintiffs cannot simply rely on a "bare assertion" of a due
process right violation.  They must specifically identify a
liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, otherwise
their claim will be dismissed.  Because the Plaintiffs have failed
to identify a specific liberty interest protected by the Due
Process Clause, their substantive due process claim must be
dismissed, Magistrate Kato held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 1, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/NK5dVx from Leagle.com.

Paul Adams, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Phillip L. Dorsey, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
William J. Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Ezequiel Monarrez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Evans"
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES. DOROTHY EVANS et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B265222, the Court of Appeals
of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the
judgment of the trial court finding no error in its judgment and
entitled respondent Hood Corporation to its costs on appeal.

Plaintiff Kenneth Evans was diagnosed with asbestosis after a
decades-long career working for the Southern California Gas
Company (SoCalGas). For about 35 percent of his employment, Evans
worked alongside contractors who helped build and replace gas
pipelines; some of those pipelines were covered in a coating that
contained asbestos. Evans and his wife, plaintiff Dorothy Evans,
sued several contractors, alleging that they contributed to
Evans's asbestosis. By the end of the trial, the only remaining
defendant was respondent Hood Corporation, and the only remaining
cause of action was negligence. The jury found that Hood's conduct
exposed Evans to asbestos, but that Hood was not negligent. A
defense judgment was entered, and plaintiffs appealed.

The Plaintiffs argue that the court erred by excluding two
exhibits containing SoCalGas specifications for contractors,
allowing the president of Hood to use a contract from an
irrelevant time period to refresh his recollection about the
content of earlier contracts, and giving the jury two erroneous
instructions: one about employer duties, and another stating that
Hood was required to adhere to a "professional" standard of care.
On the first argument, the Court of Appeals held that while the
plaintiffs are correct that both an employer and a third party may
be liable for an employee's injury, nothing in Special Instruction
No. 5 suggested to the jury that a third party cannot be liable.
Indeed, the entire focus of the trial was whether a third party --
Hood -- was liable to Evans.  The jury was instructed to determine
that issue, therefore making clear that Hood could be held liable.
Moreover, the jury was instructed that if it found Hood negligent,
it could attribute some or all of the fault to other entities,
including SoCalGas, further indicating that multiple parties could
be liable for Evans's injuries, the Court of Appeals further held.
Even if the instruction were an erroneous statement of the law,
the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
probability that in the absence of the error, the jury would have
reached a result more favorable to plaintiffs, the Court of
Appeals added.

On the second argument, the Court of Appeals held that there was
no suggestion from the court that the jury was required to rely on
any particular type of expert testimony.  In addition, the
plaintiffs did not object to the trial court that they were
limited in the type of expert testimony they were allowed to
present. In short, there is no indication that plaintiffs' case
suffered for lack of a different type of expert, the Court of
Appeals further held.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 22, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/9ZKtJ2 from Leagle.com.

The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin, Esq.; Farrise Firm and Simona
A. Farrise, Esq. for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Foley & Mansfield, Jennifer McCormick, Esq. --
jmccormick@foleymansfield.com,  Joseph V. Macha, Esq. --
jmacha@foleymansfield.com, and Judith A. Zipkin, Esq. --
jzipkin@foleymansfield.com for Defendants and Respondents Hood
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Action "French"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, refused to remand the
case captioned DONALD R. FRENCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A. W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16 CV 1777
(N.D. Ohio).

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga
County, Ohio. Plaintiffs move to remand on two grounds. First that
the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3); and
secondly, that the removing Defendants have not established all of
the elements necessary for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1442(a)(1).

The Plaintiffs filed this action on December 1, 2015, against
multiple defendants including the removing defendants GE and
Westinghouse. The Complaint states that Donald French was exposed
to the Defendants' asbestos and asbestos-containing materials by
virtue of working with or around asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials, and that such exposures were substantial factors which
directly and proximately caused him to develop mesothelioma.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding additional defendants
on May 2, 2016. The Amended Complaint asserts the following eight
claims against all of the defendants: negligence (failure to
warn), strict liability (design defect), breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, statutory products liability
under Ohio R.C. Section 2307.71, punitive damages and loss of
consortium. Neither complaint provides any details concerning any
specific product manufactured or supplied by GE or Westinghouse to
which Mr. French was allegedly exposed or identifies any specific
sites at which Mr. French encountered the Defendants' products.

The Defendants assert that this case was removable because GE and
Westinghouse-in all relevant aspects of their design, manufacture,
and supply of any Navy turbines aboard the Forrestal, and of any
warning or other written materials to be supplied therewith-were
acting under the direction of an officer of the United States.

The Court found that the Defendants' removal in this matter
occurred within the time requirements of Section 1446(b)(3) and
that GE and Westinghouse have produced sufficient evidence to
establish a colorable federal contractor defense for Plaintiffs'
design defect claims and to permit removal under 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
November 10, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/Bo3d4M from
Leagle.com.

Donald R French, Plaintiff, is represented by Brian R. Herberth,
Esq. -- Kelley & Ferraro.

Donald R French, Plaintiff, is represented by James L. Ferraro,
Esq., Ryan J. Cavanaugh, Esq. -- Kelley & Ferraro & Shawn M.
Acton, Esq. -- Kelley & Ferraro.

Charlene French, Plaintiff, is represented by Brian R. Herberth,
Kelley & Ferraro, James L. Ferraro, Ryan J. Cavanaugh, Kelley &
Ferraro & Shawn M. Acton, Kelley & Ferraro.

A.W. Chesterton Company, Defendant, is represented by Drew M.L.
Odum, Esq. --  Tucker Ellis & John P. Patterson, Esq. -- Tucker
Ellis.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Nicholas L. Evanchan, Jr., Esq. -- Evanchan & Palmisano & Ralph J.
Palmisano, Esq. -- Evanchan & Palmisano.

Hersh Packing & Rubber Co., Defendant, is represented by
Christopher F. Mars, Esq. -- Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp,
Kevin O. Kadlec, Esq. -- Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp & William
D. Bonezzi, Esq. -- Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp.

F.B. Wright Company of Ohio, Defendant, is represented by Andrew
M. Wargo, Esq. -- amwargo@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin.

JNO. J. Disch Company, Defendant, is represented by Carol K. Metz,
Esq. -- metz@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King, Justin W. Whelan,
Esq. -- whelan@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King & Theodore M. Dunn,
Jr., Esq. -- dunn@buckleyking.com -- Buckley King.

General Electric Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Christopher G. Conley, Esq. -- cgconley@ewhlaw.com -- Evert
Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, John A. Heller, Esq. --
jheller@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, Stephen C. Musilli, Esq. --
scmusilli@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Susan
Barrett Harty, Esq. -- sharty@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease & Perry W. Doran, II, Esq. -- pdoran@vorys.com -- Vorys,
Sater, Seymour & Pease.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R. Simek,
Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter O'Connell.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher G. Conley,
Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys,
Sater, Seymour & Pease, Susan Barrett Harty, Vorys, Sater, Seymour
& Pease & Perry W. Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Caryl, Tucker Ellis & Drew M.L. Odum, Tucker Ellis.

BMI Refractory Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Allied Glove Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew J.
Doz, Swartz Campbell & Ryan M. Joyce, Swartz Campbell.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher F.
Mars, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi,
Switzer, Polito & Hupp & William D. Bonezzi, Bonezzi, Switzer,
Polito & Hupp.

Atlas Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Derek M.
Brondou, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

Beazer East, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Michalec,
Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp & Matthew
T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce P.
Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne, Kurt S.
Siegfried, Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer & Berne.

Cooper Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Doz,
Swartz Campbell & Ryan M. Joyce, Swartz Campbell.

Fairmont Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Colin G.
Skinner, Oby Kramer Skinner.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
D. Schuster, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Stephen C. Musilli,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Perry W. Doran, II, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Grefco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura K. Hong, Tucker
Ellis.

Greene Tweed & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Simek, Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter O'Connell.

Guard-Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Kristan, Jr.,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A. Valenti, Kelley
Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Edward R. Hart Company, Defendant, represented by Bruce P. Mandel,
Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne, Kurt S. Siegfried,
Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer & Berne.

M.V.S. Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher F. Mars,
Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi,
Switzer, Polito & Hupp & William D. Bonezzi, Bonezzi, Switzer,
Polito & Hupp.

Sentinel Safety Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Christopher F. Mars, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Kevin O.
Kadlec, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Paul W. Smith, Bonezzi,
Switzer, Polito & Hupp & William D. Bonezzi, Bonezzi, Switzer,
Polito & Hupp.

Mau-Sherwood Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Michele L.
Larissey, Swartz Campbell.

Marmon Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura K. Hong,
Tucker Ellis.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher
C. Ross, Pullin Fowler Flanagan Brown & Poe & Stephen M. Fowler,
Pullin Fowler Flanagan Brown & Poe.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by James P. Burke,
Roetzel & Andress, Moira H. Pietrowski, Roetzel & Andress & Susan
Squire Box, Roetzel & Andress.

Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joni
M. Selep, Zimmer Kunz.

Ohio Valley Insulating Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Bruce P. Mandel, Ulmer & Berne, James N. Kline, Ulmer & Berne,
Kurt S. Siegfried, Ulmer & Berne & Robert E. Zulandt, III, Ulmer &
Berne.

Osram Sylvania, Inc., Defendant, represented by Colin G. Skinner,
Oby Kramer Skinner.

Record Industrial Co., Defendant, represented by John P. Mazza.
Robertson-Ceco Corp., Defendant, represented by Laura K. Hong,
Tucker Ellis.


RSCC Wire & Cable, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura K. Hong,
Tucker Ellis.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Drew M.L.
Odum, Tucker Ellis.

Rust Engineering & Construction Inc., Defendant, represented by
Timothy J. Green, Dinsmore & Shohl.

Tasco Insulations, Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Macomb Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Wolf,
Reminger & Reminger.

Thiem Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Michalec,
Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp & Matthew
T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

UB West Virginia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela M.
Hayden, Law Office of Benjamin G. Dusing.

Uniroyal Fiber & Textile Division of Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Angela M. Hayden, Law Office of Benjamin G. Dusing.

Universal Refractories, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Michalec, Gallagher Sharp, Kevin C. Alexandersen, Gallagher Sharp
& Matthew T. Norman, Gallagher Sharp.

Wheeler Protective Apparel Corp., Defendant, represented by John
A. Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Zurn Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R. Simek,
Sutter O'Connell & Matthew C. O'Connell, Sutter O'Connell.

Flexo Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher F.
Mars, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Kevin O. Kadlec, Bonezzi,
Switzer, Polito & Hupp, Paul W. Smith, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito &
Hupp & William D. Bonezzi, Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp.

American Optical Corporation, Defendant, represented by Drew M.L.
Odum, Tucker Ellis, Jeffrey A. Healy, Tucker Ellis, Karen E. Ross,
Tucker Ellis & Scott J. Wilkov, Tucker Ellis & West.

Amchem Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Perry W. Doran,
II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster, Vorys,
Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater, Seymour
& Pease.

CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Perry W. Doran,
II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster, Vorys,
Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater, Seymour
& Pease.

I.U. North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Diane L.
Feigi, Baker & Hostetler & Edward D. Papp, Baker & Hostetler.

Red Seal Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laura K.
Hong, Tucker Ellis.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Diane L. Feigi,
Baker & Hostetler & Edward D. Papp, Baker & Hostetler.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melanie
M. Irwin, Willman & Silvaggio, pro hac vice, Joseph D. Silvaggio,
Willman & Silvaggio & Steven G. Blackmer, Willman & Silvaggio, pro
hac vice.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by James L. McCrystal,
Jr., Sutter O'Connell & Nathan F. Studeny, Sutter O'Connell.

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease & Perry W. Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease.

Ferro Engineering Division of ON Marine Services Company,
Defendant, represented by Evan J. Palik, McMahon DeGulis, James A.
Byrne, McMahon DeGulis & Stephen H. Daniels, McMahon DeGulis.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Perry W.
Doran, II, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Perry W. Doran, II,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Richard D. Schuster, Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease & Stephen C. Musilli, Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease.

Insul Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joni M. Selep,
Zimmer Kunz.

Clark Industrial Insulation Co., Defendant, represented by John A.
Kristan, Jr., Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna & John A.
Valenti, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna.

Nock Refractories Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by C. Richard
McDonald, Sr., Davis & Young.

Ajax Magnethermic Corp., Defendant, represented by Mark E. Floyd,
Riley Hewitt Witte & Romano & William J. Witte, Riley, Hewitt,
Witte & Romano.

Ajax Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Laura K.
Hong, Tucker Ellis.

Fives North American Combustion Inc., Defendant, represented by
Derek M. Brondou, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

North American Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by
Derek M. Brondou, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kase"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GARY KASE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No.
A143590 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division One, affirmed the summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' failure to warn claims on the ground the evidence was
insufficient to raise a triable issue as to causation.

The Plaintiffs appeal from a defense summary judgment in this
asbestos case arising from Gary Kase's exposure to asbestos
insulation used on nuclear submarines during the early 1970's.
The principal issue in this case is whether the Navy's procurement
of asbestos insulation for its nuclear submarines comes within the
ambit of the government contractor defense set forth in Boyle v.
United Technologies Corp. (1988) 487 U.S. 500. The Court of
Appeals held that this defense has long been available, even if
not always successfully proved up, in asbestos lawsuits brought
against the manufacturers and suppliers of military hardware and
equipment. However, defendant Metalclad Insulation Corporation did
not design or produce a piece of hardware or equipment that
included asbestos-containing materials, the Court of Appeals held.
Rather, as a broker, it arranged for asbestos-containing
insulation to be shipped directly to the Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, where workers packed it around the submarine piping it
protected, the court said.

Metalclad provided the asbestos-containing insulation, called
Unibestos, pursuant to and in compliance with relatively detailed
performance and testing specifications. These specifications did
not expressly call out for asbestos in the insulation. But
according to the undisputed record evidence, the specifications
could only be met by asbestos-containing insulation, and the only
product on the Navy's approved list of suitable products was
Unibestos, the Court of Appeals held.  It is also undisputed that
for decades the Navy studied the health hazards associated with
the use of asbestos products and, despite the concerns raised by
these studies, continued to require use of these products and
continued to expressly approve the use of Unibestos. The Navy did
not, however, participate in the development or manufacture of
Unibestos and, in addition to military sales, the insulation has
long been sold commercially, the court said.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 22, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/esfrOT from Leagle.com.

Brayton Purcell, LLP, Gary L. Brayton, Esq. and Richard M. Grant,
Esq. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dentons US LLP, Lisa Lurline Oberg, Esq. --
Lisa.Oberg@dentons.com, Felicia Y. Feng, Esq. and Andrea J.
Casalett, Esq. -- Andrea.Casalett@dentons.com; Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Thomas M. Peterson, Esq. --
thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com and Deborah E. Quick Esq. --
deborah.quick@morganlewis.comfor Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal Order in "Kordestani"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NADER KORDESTANI et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and
Appellants, No. B257193, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Four, reversed the order of dismissal,
remanded the matter for further proceedings, and dismissed Exxon's
cross-appeal.

In this asbestos-related personal injury case, plaintiffs Nader
and Sherry Kordestani appeal from the order dismissing their
negligence claims against defendants ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
and Exxon Mobil Corporation (collectively, Exxon). Exxon cross-
appeals, challenging an earlier oral ruling denying its request to
apply Iranian law to select issues of liability and damages.

The Court of Appeals agreed with appellants that the trial court
erred in concluding that the negligence claims already had been
summarily adjudicated against them.

The Court of Appeals held that the appellants have met the burden
of showing error by showing that the trial court dismissed their
negligence claims against Exxon on the erroneous assumption that
they were indistinguishable from claims that had been summarily
adjudicated earlier.  The written order states the court broadly
determined that "there is no basis to support any duty not
previously adjudicated," but the record does not show the court
had considered the merits of plaintiffs' remaining theories
separately from the previously adjudicated claims, the court
pointed out.  Nor has Exxon argued that plaintiffs' three theories
of liability are legally insufficient for any other reason, and we
decline to construct arguments in its favor, the Court of Appeals
said.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reverses the order of
dismissal without expressing a view on the merits of the
plaintiffs' negligence theories.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 17, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/D1vWYp from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi, Esq., Cindy Saxey, Esq., and
Josiah Parker, Esq. for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad Esq. -- daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com
-- and Daniel J. Gonzalez, Esq. -- dgonzalez@horvitzlevy.com;
McKenna Long & Aldridge, Jaime C. Long, Esq. and Frederic W.
Norris, Esq.; Armstrong & Associates, William H. Armstrong, Esq. -
- bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com and Jennifer D. Fitzpatrick,
Esq. -- jennifer.fitzpatrick@armstrongetal.com for Defendants and
Appellants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants IDC's Bid to Dismiss "Lindsay"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted third-party defendant
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited's
motion to dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice Cooper/T. Smith
Stevedoring Company, Inc.'s claims against IDC in the case
captioned EARL T. LINDSAY, JR. AND JOCELYN BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF THE DECEDENT, EARL T. LINDSAY, SECTION "R" (5),
v. PORTS AMERICA GULFPORT, INC., ET AL, Civil Action No. 16-3054
(E.D. La.), holding that because Cooper's claims against IDC are
invalid as a matter of both Louisiana and maritime law, and
because no set of facts could alter this conclusion, Cooper's
claims must be dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Vance also remanded the Plaintiffs' remaining claims to the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

The case arises out of decedent Earl T. Lindsay's occupational
exposure to asbestos and contraction of lung cancer.  The
Plaintiffs, two of Lindsay's surviving children, allege that
Lindsay worked as a longshoreman for several stevedoring companies
in the Port of New Orleans from 1954 to 1979. During this period,
Lindsay was allegedly exposed to airborne asbestos fibers during
the loading and off-loading of cargo that included raw asbestos
and asbestos-containing products and materials. Plaintiffs allege
that Lindsay developed lung cancer as a result of this exposure
and died from the disease on February 18, 2015.

On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans against Lindsay's
employers, various vessel owners and vessel repair contractors
associated with his employment, two insurance companies, and other
firms. One of the entities named as a defendant in plaintiffs'
state-court petition was IDC. As to most of the named defendants,
plaintiffs asserted claims for, among other things, negligence,
strict liability, intentional tort, and premises liability. As to
IDC, plaintiffs also asserted claims under the Jones Act, 46
U.S.C. Section 30104, et seq.

Plaintiffs then sought to remand the case to state court, or in
the alternative, to sever Cooper's third-party claims and remand
the main action. The Court rejected all of plaintiffs' arguments
for remand as well as their request to sever Cooper's claims in
its July 14, 2016 order. The Court observed that Cooper's claims
against IDC appeared to be an attempt to manufacture federal
jurisdiction and lacked merit. Accordingly, the Court ordered IDC
to file a motion to dismiss Cooper's third-party claims within
twenty-one days of the Court's July 14 order. IDC filed its motion
on August 4, and Cooper filed a memorandum in opposition, which
also asks the Court to convert IDC's motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment.

IDC argues that plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims against IDC
with prejudice renders Cooper's claims for contribution and/or
indemnity void as a matter of both Louisiana and maritime law.
Under Louisiana law, a joint tortfeasor benefits from the release
of debt or liability of another joint tortfeasor by the tort
claimant.

Cooper contends that this rule does not apply to dismissals with
prejudice, but both the Fifth Circuit and Louisiana courts have
held that it does.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/4wyLA9 from Leagle.com.

Joycelyn L Butler, Plaintiff, is represented by J. Burton LeBlanc,
IV, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C..

Joycelyn L Butler, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher C.
Colley, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C., David Ryan Cannella, Esq. --
Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Jeremiah S. Boling, Esq. -- Baron & Budd,
P.C. & Renee M. Melancon, Esq. -- Baron & Budd, P.C..

Earl T. Lindsay, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by J. Burton
LeBlanc, IV, Baron & Budd, P.C., Christopher C. Colley, Baron &
Budd, P.C., David Ryan Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Jeremiah
S. Boling, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Renee M. Melancon, Baron & Budd,
P.C..

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Defendant, is represented by
Alan Guy Brackett, Esq. -- abrackett@mblb.com -- Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC, Robert Neven Popich, Esq. --
rpopich@mblb.com -- Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC &
Wilton Ellwood Bland, IV, Esq. -- wbland@mblb.com -- Mouledoux,
Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC.

Crowley Marine Services, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kevin
J. LaVie, Esq. -- kevin.lavie@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. -- meredith.blanque@phelps.com -- Phelps
Dunbar, LLP & Robert J. Barbier, Esq. -- robert.barbier@phelps.com
-- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Gus David Oppermann, V, Esq. -- Wheat, Oppermann & Meeks, P.C..

Ports America Gulfport, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jacques
P. DeGruy, Esq. -- jdegruy@frfirm.com -- Fowler Rodriguez &
Jeffrey S. Hall, Jr., Esq. -- jhall@frfirm.com -- Fowler
Rodriguez.

SSA Gulf, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Richard P. Sulzer,
Esq. -- rsulzer@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC,
Christina F. Baldwin, Esq. -- cbaldwin@sulzerandwilliams.com --
Sulzer & Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV, Esq. --
rwilliams@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC.

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

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

Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Alan Guy Brackett, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand &
Brackett, LLC, Robert Neven Popich, Mouledoux, Bland, Legrand &
Brackett, LLC & Wilton Ellwood Bland, IV, Mouledoux, Bland,
Legrand & Brackett, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Police Allowed To Pursue Sec. 205-e Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
In IN THE MATTER OF JAMES R. DIEGELMAN ET AL., Appellants, v. CITY
OF BUFFALO ET AL., Respondents, No. 168, 2016 NY Slip Op 07817
(N.Y. App.), the Court of Appeals of New York was asked to
determine whether a police officer who is entitled to receive
benefits under General Municipal Law Section 207-c for a duty-
related injury is barred from bringing a claim against his or her
employer under General Municipal Law Section 205-e.  The Court of
Appeals concluded that, where the municipal employer has elected
not to provide coverage pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law,
a police officer who suffers a line-of-duty injury caused by the
employer's statutory or regulatory violations may pursue a section
205-e claim.

The City of Buffalo employed claimant James R. Diegelman as a
police officer from 1968 until 1995. On August 9, 2012, he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos. Claimant and his wife, Andrea M. Diegelman, allege that
exposure to asbestos occurred during his employment at properties
owned by the City and respondent Board of Education, and used by
the Police Department. Claimants commenced this proceeding seeking
permission to serve a late notice of claim on the City. In
opposition, the City argued, among other things, that leave should
be denied on the ground that the claim was patently without merit
because General Municipal Law Section 207-c provides the exclusive
remedy for the alleged work-related injuries.

The New York Supreme Court granted claimants' application for
permission to serve a late notice of claim on the City. The City
appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed on the law and
denied the application. The Appellate Division agreed with the
City that the claim was barred by General Municipal Law Section
207-c and, thus, held that claimants' application should be denied
because "leave to file a late notice of claim is not appropriate
for a patently meritless claim". This Court granted claimants'
motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeals concluded that General Municipal Law Section
205-e, when construed "in an unforced and natural manner," cannot
be read to bar suits by recipients of General Municipal Law
Section 207-c benefits when those police officers are employed by
municipalities that have elected not to provide workers'
compensation coverage.  The contrary interpretation urged by the
City and the dissent is inconsistent with the plain words of the
statute, as well as the express statement of legislative intent
and the legislative history of the statute, the Court of Appeals
said.  The City's interpretation also conflicts with our prior
decisions recognizing that the statute should be applied
expansively and disregards the distinctions between workers'
compensation benefits and section 207-c benefits long recognized
by this Court, the court said.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 21, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/771Tyd from Leagle.com.

John A. Collins, Esq. for appellants.

David M. Lee, Esq. for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Reverses Remand Ruling in "Papp"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
the district court's judgment granting Steven Papp's bid to remand
his lawsuit back to state court because the federal officer
removal statute extends to contractors who possess a colorable
federal defense, and that The Boeing Company made a sufficient
showing of such a defense at the time of removal.

Papp, individually and on behalf of Mary's estate, alleges that
Mary suffered secondary "take home" asbestos exposure while
washing the work clothes of her first husband, Robert Keck. Keck
had several jobs that exposed him to asbestos, including one for
the New Brunswick Plating Co. in the late 1970s. While working for
New Brunswick, Keck sandblasted the landing gear of World War II
military cargo planes to prepare the gear for repairs. Papp
contends that that process resulted in Keck having airborne
asbestos fibers adhere to his clothing so that Mary, who handled
the clothes, inhaled the asbestos.

Steven Papp filed this failure-to-warn product liability suit
against Boeing in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging that
his late wife, Mary was made ill by exposure to asbestos from a
Boeing aircraft. Boeing removed Papp's failure-to-warn suit to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on the
basis of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1). According to Boeing, it was acting as a government
contractor when it engaged in the allegedly tortious conduct.
After removal, Papp filed a motion to remand the case to state
court, which the District Court granted. The District Court ruled
that Boeing had failed to meet a "special burden" of establishing
that a federal officer or agency affirmatively prohibited Boeing
from warning third parties of the dangers of asbestos found in
planes manufactured in the mid-twentieth century.

The District Court held that, because Boeing was a contractor and
not a federal officer, it had a "special burden" to demonstrate
that it was acting under the control of the federal government.
The District Court said that, to prove removal jurisdiction,
Boeing was required to show that it performed the complained-of
activity at the direction of official federal authority. Because
the allegedly wrongful behavior was the failure to warn third
parties of asbestos, the District Court concluded that Boeing must
show "that a federal officer or agency directly prohibited Boeing
from issuing, or otherwise providing, warnings as to the risks
associated with exposure to asbestos contained in products on
which third-parties worked or otherwise provided services." Using
that standard, the Court decided that Boeing did not meet its
special burden and that remand to state court was proper.  Boeing
timely appealed.

The appeals case is STEVEN PAPP, individually and as Executor and
Executor as Prosequendum of the Estate of MARY SUE PAPP, v. FORE-
KAST SALES CO., INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied
Signal, Inc., as successor-in-interest to the Bendix Corporation;
NEW BRUNSWICK PLATING CO., f/k/a New Brunswick Nickel and Chrome
Plating; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50;
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 51-100; GOODRICH CORP., f/k/a B.F. Goodrich
Co.; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; THE BOEING COMPANY,
individually and as successor by merger to the McDonnell Douglas
Corporation The Boeing Company, Appellant, No. 15-2851 (3d Cir.).

A ful-text copy of the Decision dated November 22, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/ihq7fr from Leagle.com.

Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq. -- abocchino@mgmlaw.com, Jason A.
Cincilla, Esq. -- jcincilla@mgmlaw.com,  Marc S. Gaffrey, Esq. --
mgaffrey@hoaglandlongo.com,  Bryan P. Smith, Esq. --
bsmith@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, 1007 N. Orange
Street, Tenth Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Martin F. Gaynor, III, [ARGUED], Esq. -- mgaynor@mgmlaw.com --
Nicholas D. Stellakis, Esq. -- nstellakis@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor & Manning, 125 High Street, Boston, MA 02110.

Brian D. Gross, Esq. -- bgross@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor &
Manning, One Citizens Plaza, Suite 620, Providence, RI 02903,
Counsel for Appellant, Boeing Co.

Jeffrey P. Blumstein [ARGUED], Esq. -- JBlumstein@szaferman.com,
Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com, Robert G. Stevens,
Jr., Esq. -- RStevens@szaferman.com, -- Szaferman Lakind Blumstein
& Blader, 101 Grovers Mill Road, Suite 200, Lawrenceville, NJ
08649.

Joseph J. Mandia, Esq. -- Levy Konigsberg, 800 Third Avenue, 13th
Floor, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Loupe" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case captioned BONNIE ANN TREGRE LOUPE, ET AL. v.
PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION "R" (5),
Civil Action No. 16-6075 (E.D. La.), because defendant Huntington
Ingalls Inc.'s removal petition was untimely and denied the
Plaintiffs' other motions.

Plaintiffs Bonnie Anne Tregre Loupe, Lee Ann Tregre Cortez, and
Sherry Tregre Cortez, move to remand the case to state court.  The
Plaintiffs also move for costs and fees, and sanctions, based on
Huntington's purportedly improper removal to this Court.

Marie Nell Martinez Tregre originally filed this suit in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans. According to the
complaint, Mrs. Tregre's husband, Lee Tregre, worked for Avondale
Industries, Inc., a predecessor company to Defendant Huntington
Ingalls Inc., from approximately 1953 through 1994. While working
at Avondale, Mr. Tregre was allegedly exposed to asbestos, and
some of this asbestos clung to Mr. Tregre and his clothing after
he left work each day. As a result, Mrs. Tregre came into contact
with dangerously high levels of asbestos in the course of
interacting with Mr. Tregre and laundering his clothes. Mrs.
Tregre was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015.

In addition to Avondale, Mrs. Tregre sued several defendants
involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of asbestos-
containing products that Mr. Tregre allegedly encountered in the
course of his work. Mrs. Tregre also brought claims against
insurance companies that allegedly provided coverage to defendants
and their employees for asbestos-related claims.

Mrs. Tregre died on September 2, 2015. Mrs. Tregre's three
surviving children, Bonnie Ann Tregre Loupe, Lee Ann Tregre
Cortez, and Sherry Tregre Cortez, have since been substituted as
plaintiffs. Mrs. Tregre's children now bring claims sounding in
negligence, intentional tort, fraud, and strict liability.
Avondale removed to this Court on May 16, 2016. In its notice of
removal, Avondale asserts that this Court may exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28
U.S.C. Section 1442, because Mr. Tregre was exposed to asbestos on
ships Avondale built for the U.S. government, and Avondale's
government contracts required the use of asbestos. Plaintiffs
argue that removal was both untimely and improper on the merits,
and now move to remand to state court.

In addition to moving for remand, plaintiffs also move for costs
and fees, and for sanctions, against Avondale.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 17, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/9NJsKt from Leagle.com.

Bonnie Ann Tregre Loupe, Plaintiff, is represented by Gerolyn
Petit Roussel, Esq. -- Roussel & Clement.

Bonnie Ann Tregre Loupe, Plaintiff, is represented by Jonathan
Brett Clement, Esq. -- Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement,
Esq. -- Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Esq. --
Roussel & Clement.

Lee Ann Tregre Cortez, Plaintiff, is represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Sherry Tregre Cortez, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Esq. -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, is represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Esq. -- glee@leefutrell.com -- Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Esq. -- dlancaster@leefutrell.com --
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, John M. Futrell, Esq. --
jfutrell@leefutrell.com -- Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Scott Minyard, Esq. -- mminyard@leefutrell.com -- Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Michael Kevin Powell, Esq. -- mpowell@leefutrell.com
-- Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Scott Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Michael Kevin Powell,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott
Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G.
Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis
Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith and
Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Robert Leland Redfearn, Jr., Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Stephen Jared Austin, Stephen J. Austin, LLC.

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

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

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins &
Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz, LLP
& Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial
Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher
T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Katherine
Osborne Hannan, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne
Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr.,
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr.,
Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Affirms Ruling in "Rost"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD M. ROST, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
RICHARD J. ROST & ERIN SIPLEY, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOYCE
ROST, Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, No. 56 EAP 2014
(Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District,
addressed again the proper application of the "frequency,
regularity, and proximity" criteria in asbestos product liability
litigation, seeking to provide further illumination on the
principles set forth in the decisions in this area, Gregg, v. V-J
Auto Parts, Co., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007), and Betz, v. Pneumo
Abex. LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012).

The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court and the Superior
Court properly applied those principles in this case, and thus
affirmed the judgment entered in favor of Appellees.

In October 2009, Richard and Joyce Rost filed suit against
multiple manufacturers of asbestos, averring that exposure to the
defendants' asbestos-containing products caused Richard Rost to
contract mesothelioma.  Before trial, the Rosts settled their
claims against all defendants except for Ford Motor Company.  Over
Ford's objections, the trial court consolidated the case for trial
with two other mesothelioma cases.  Trial commenced in September
2011, at which time the trial court reminded the parties of a pre-
trial ruling, in accordance with Gregg, precluding any expert from
offering testimony that "each and every breath" of asbestos may
constitute an evidentiary basis for the jury to find that the
defendant's product was a substantial cause of mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated November 22, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/pCa9BO from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Byer, Esq. -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris
LLP, for Ford Motor Company, Appellant.

Sharon L. Caffrey, Esq. -- slcaffrey@duanemorris.com -- Duane
Morris, L.L.P., for Ford Motor Company, Appellant.

David James Bird, Esq. -- Reed Smith LLP, for Product Liability
Advisory Council, Inc., 1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 510,
Appellant Amicus Curiae.

John Jacob Hare, Esq. -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., for Pennsylvania Chamber of
Business and Industry, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

John Jacob Hare, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
P.C., for Pennsylvania Defense Institute, Appellant Amicus Curiae.
Alice Sacks Johnston, Esq. -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
LLP, for Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Appellant Amicus
Curiae.

Martin S. Kaufman, Esq. -- Atlantic Legal Foundation, for Atlantic
Legal Foundation, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Peter J. Neeson, Esq. -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson
LLP, for Honeywell International, Inc., Appellant Amicus Curiae.
Sean Peter Wajert, Esq. -- swajert@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, L.L.P., for American Insurance Association (The), Appellant
Amicus Curiae.

Sean Peter Wajert, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., for American Tort
Reform Association, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Sean Peter Wajert, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., for Coalition for
Litigation Justice, Inc., Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Sean Peter Wajert, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., for National
Association of Manufacturers, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

James Michael Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith
LLP, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., 1850 Centennial
Park Drive, Suite 510, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Carl D. Buchholz, III, Esq. -- cbuchholz@rawle.com -- Rawle &
Henderson, L.L.P., for Honeywell International, Inc., Appellant
Amicus Curiae.

James Michael Evans, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, for
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Angela Marie Heim, Rawle & Henderson LLP, for Honeywell
International, Inc., Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Patrick Joseph Hughes, Connell Foley, LLP, for Atlantic Legal
Foundation, Appellant Amicus Curiae.

Clayton Layne Thompson, Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC,
for Erin Sipley, Executrix of the Estate of Joyce Rost, Appellee.

Clayton Layne Thompson, Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC,
for Richard M. Rost, Executor of the Estate of Richard J. Rost,
Appellee.

Steven J. Cooperstein, Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, for
Erin Sipley, Executrix of the Estate of Joyce Rost, Appellee.

Steven J. Cooperstein, Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, for
Richard M. Rost, Executor of the Estate of Richard J. Rost,
Appellee.

Michael B. Leh, Locks Law Firm, for Ana Diez Roux, M.D., PhD.,
M.P.H., Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Dr. Med.
Xaver Baur, Prof. Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Carlos
Bedrossian, MD, PhD (Hon), FIAC, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Eula
Bingham, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Yv Bonnier-
Viger, MD, MSc, MM, CMSQ, FRCPC, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for James
Brophy, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Massimiliano
Bugiani, MD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Barry
Cattleman, ScD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Richard
Clapp, DSc, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Dario
Consonni, MD PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Emilie
Counil, Appellee Amicus Curiae.
Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Mohamed
Aqiel Dalvie, BSc, Hons, MSc, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for John M.
Dement, Ph.D., CIH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Tony
Fletcher, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Professor
Bice Fubini, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Thomas H.
Gassert, MD, MSc, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Michael
Gochfeld, MD, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for David F.
Goldsmith, MSPH, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Lennart
Hadell, MD, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for James Huff,
PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Peter F.
Infante, DDS, DrPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Mohamed F.
Jeebhay MBChB, MPH OeeMed), PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for T.K. Joshi,
FRCS, FFOM, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Margaret
Keith, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for John R.
Keyserlingk, MD, MSC, FRCS(C), FACS, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Kapil
Khatter, MD, CCFP, MES, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Shira
Kramer, MHS, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Philip J.
Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Bruce
Lanpher, MD, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Richard A.
Lemen, PhD., MSPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Charles
Levenstein, PhD., MS, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Abby
Lippman, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Gerald
Markowitz, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Sigurd
Mikkelson, MD, DrMedSci, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Dario
Mirabelli, MD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Celeste
Monforton, DrPH, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Muge
Akpinar-Elci, M.D., MPH; Prof. Dr. Med. Xavier Baur, et al.,
Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Rama C.
Nair, BSc, MStat, MSc, PhD, FACE, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for L. Christine
Oliver, MD, MPH, MS, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for David
Ozonoff, MD, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Domyung
Paek, MD, MSc, ScD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Smita
Pakhale, MD, FRCPC, MSc (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Appellee
Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Rolf
Petersen, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Beth
Rosenberg, ScD, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Kenneth
Rosenman, MD, FACE, FACPM, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for David
Rosner, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Bruce E. Mattock, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Ethel H.
Wise, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Joseph D. Satterley, KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD, for
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Appellee Amicus
Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Xaver
Baur, Prof. Dr. Med., Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Carlos
Bedrossian, MD, PhD (Hon), FIAC, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Eula
Bingham, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Yv
Bonnier-Viger, MD, MSc, MM, CMSQ, FRCPC, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for James
Brophy, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for
Massimiliano Bugiani, MD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Barry
Cattleman, ScD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Richard
Clapp, DSc, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Dario
Consonni, MD PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Emilie
Counil, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Mohamed
Aqiel Dalvie, BSc, Hons, MSc, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for John M.
Dement, Ph.D., CIH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Tony
Fletcher, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Bice
Fubini, Professor Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Thomas H.
Gassert, MD, MSc, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Michael
Gochfeld, MD, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for David F.
Goldsmith, MSPH, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Lennart
Hadell, MD, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for James
Huff, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Peter F.
Infante, DDS, DrPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Mohamed
F. Jeebhay MBChB, MPH OeeMed), PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for T.K.
Joshi, FRCS, FFOM, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Margaret
Keith, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for John R.
Keyserlingk, MD, MSC, FRCS(C), FACS, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Kapil
Khatter, MD, CCFP, MES, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Shira
Kramer, MHS, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Philip J.
Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Bruce
Lanpher, MD, MPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Richard
A. Lemen, PhD., MSPH, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Charles
Levenstein, PhD., MS, Appellee Amicus Curiae.

Jason Timothy Shipp, Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., for Abby
Lippman, PhD, Appellee Amicus Curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport News Cases Example of Broken System
------------------------------------------------------------
A new whitepaper released on December 8, 2016, highlights how
lawyers for asbestos victims in Newport News, VA, routinely
manipulate court cases to force solvent companies to pay for
injuries caused by other, bankrupt companies.

The paper, Disconnects & Double-Dipping, provides several examples
in which asbestos plaintiffs and their lawyers failed to identify
exposures to bankrupt companies' asbestos products until after
collecting large multi-million dollar jury awards or settlements
from solvent companies. As a result of this scheme, asbestos
plaintiffs "double-dip" by collecting through court cases and
again from large trust funds set up by bankrupt companies.

The paper was commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR).

"The lack of transparency in the Newport News courts allows
plaintiffs' lawyers to game the system, squeeze extra money out of
businesses and finite trust funds, and maximize their own fees on
these cases," said Lisa A. Rickard, president of ILR.

"This is not a victimless behavior," Rickard added. "Abuse today
leaves less for future claimants, and creates economic damage when
companies are forced to pay more than their fair share."

Newport News is home to many asbestos cases because it is a major
shipbuilding center and asbestos was widely used in that industry.
According to the paper, 732 asbestos cases were filed in the
Circuit Court for the City of Newport News from January 2013 until
September of this year.

The paper explains that a growing number of states have passed
"transparency" legislation to stop abuses like those found in the
Newport News courts and encourages the Virginia legislature to
enact similar reforms.

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the global,
national, state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fight for State-Funded Treatment Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Northland Age reported that one of New Zealand's youngest
asbestos cancer sufferers, Deanna Trevarthen, died in Auckland on
Monday, surrounded by family and in the arms of her long-term
partner, Greg Robertson.

She was 45.

Deanna, like Greg a one-time employee of the Northland Age, fought
her incurable disease for a year longer than doctors had expected,
Greg telling the NZ Herald that his soul mate and best friend had
but passed away in peace and without pain.

"Dee faced death as she lived life; smiling and with absolute
determination," he said.

"She never allowed this incurable disease to take her dignity, and
it's a testament to her qualities that in the last days of her
life she was more concerned about me than herself.

She never gave in, and it was only her body that stopped her
fight."

Cancer specialists treating Deanna believe she was exposed to the
deadly asbestos fibres as a 10-year-old through her electrician
father's work, but she was not entitled to ACC cover because she
had not been employed in an asbestos risk industry.

The couple took the dispute to court, but lost.

Mr Robertson said there was no doubt that Deanna had accidentally
inhaled the asbestos fibres, and believed that linking
compensation to employment was unfair and outdated.

It had also taken ACC too long to review evidence when dealing
with a fast-moving disease like cancer.

The couple had called on family (Mr Robertson is the son of Bev,
who lives at Hihi, and the late Les Robertson, one-time principal
at Taipa Area School), fundraised and borrowed to self-fund
treatment with Keytruda.

That had cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said, but had
given Deanna almost a year longer than expected.

Large tumours on her back had almost disappeared and a "tricky"
tumour on her lung improved enough for radiation treatment.

The cancer returned two months ago.

And despite his grief, Mr Robertson said he would continue
fighting on Deanna's behalf and for future asbestos cancer
sufferers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Patterson Schools Improperly Handled Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fausto Giovanny Pinto, writing for NJ.com, reported that a former
environmental officer is suing Paterson Schools, claiming the
district mishandled numerous environmental issues like mold and
asbestos removal in violation of federal regulations.

Brenda Zemo, an Environmental Occupational Health and Safety
Officer since 2008, claims she was subjected to a hostile
workplace after she raised concerns about the alleged mishandling
of the material by the Facilities Department and its Executive
Director Steve Morlino, according to the lawsuit.

She claims she was let go by the department after she filed the
complaint.

The only female employee at the department, Zemo's role was to
ensure the district provided a safe and healthy work environment
for about 23,000 students and 5,400 staff.

During several instances, Zemo claims Morlino disregarded her
advice to hire outside contractors licensed in abatement and
improperly undertook actions at the school in violation of federal
safety regulations.

These allegedly include:

   * Having unlicensed school staff remove asbestos tiles inside a
classroom at School 12

   * Improperly storing asbestos material at the school facilities
site on 200 Sheridan Avenue as opposed to a proper landfill

   * Having untrained staff remove mold at various schools
including P.S. 25, P.S. 24, P.S. 10, P.S. 4, P.S. 30 and the Boris
Kroll Mill Building.

   * Improper installation of an HVAC system at 5 Colt Street,
which housed the HARP and YES academies, leading staff members to
complain about feeling ill due to a mildew odor at the building.

   * Construction debris and dust being left at the 5 Colt Street
site in violation of Indoor Air Quality Standards.

During the 2014-2015 school year, Zemo was tasked with testing
lead levels in water at district schools. Her information was
handed off to Morlino, who then presented it to district
supervisors, chiefs and principals, the lawsuit states.

When it was determined in February that principals and
superintendents did not pass on the information to parents in
2015, Morlino allegedly tried to blame Zemo for the oversight.

Superintendent Donnie Evans sent a letter to parents in April,
apologizing for not notifying them about the lead issue.

Morlino was the director of facilities at Newark Schools from 1999
to 2014, during which time the district allegedly failed to change
water filters leading to elevated levels of lead in drinking
water.

After Zemo filed a hostile workplace complaint with the district,
she was reassigned to the school business department in May. They
later deemed her report "unfounded" and on June 3 Evans told Zemo
that her contract would not be renewed for the following school
year.

Zemo is suing the district for an order or reinstatement or
compensatory pay and an order from the district banning Morlino
and other employees from retaliating against her.

A lawyer of Zemo did not return a request to comment. Morlino and
Terry Corallo, district spokeswoman, did not return emails seeking
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Councils Pay Out More Than GBP37,000 in Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cox, writing for Nottingham Post, reported that councils
have paid out more than GBP370,000 in the last ten years to
victims of asbestos-related illnesses caused by historical
exposure in schools.

The figures, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act,
reveal the scale of the ongoing problem of asbestos in schools,
which was banned from all buildings in 1999.

The material was widely used in buildings from the 1950s onwards
and is known to remain in 266 council-run schools in the city and
county.

Bosses at Nottinghamshire County Council have said they take the
problem of asbestos in schools "extremely seriously".

It has settled claims totalling GBP196,907 to two people since
2011, while the city council has paid a total of GBP177,000 to
"fewer than five" individuals since 2006. All victims, who have
been kept anonymous by the local authorities, were teachers,
caretakers or pupils in Nottinghamshire schools when they were
exposed to asbestos.

Jas Hundal, service director for transport, property and
environment at Nottinghamshire County Council, said: "Since 2011,
the council has received three claims relating to exposure to
asbestos - all of which relate to historic incidents - prior to
the current controls which are now in place.

"Asbestos was widely used in construction until the late 1990s and
is present in thousands of public buildings, schools, homes and
offices throughout the country. It only becomes a danger when
materials that contain it are disturbed or damaged.

"There have been no notifiable asbestos related incidents in
Nottinghamshire schools in the last five years."

An incubation period of up to 40 years means health problems often
occur decades after the asbestos fibres were originally inhaled.
This means victims, and local authorities, are dealing with the
impact decades after exposure.

One of the most common types of asbestos-related illness is
mesothelioma, a cancer that develops in the lungs. There is
currently no known cure for the disease.

A Nottingham City Council spokesperson said parents and staff
didn't need to be concerned about asbestos in its schools.

He said: "Policies and procedures are in place to ensure that
pupils and staff are not put at risk. Surveys are undertaken in
schools on a regular basis to ensure that asbestos-containing
materials are identified and action taken where necessary.

"Any asbestos-containing materials that remain are in a condition
and/or location that do not present any health risks."

An investigation carried out by the BBC found that local
authorities across England have paid out over GBP10m in
compensation over the past decade to people who have developed
illnesses after exposure to asbestos in schools. It also found
that asbestos is known to be present in 12,600 local authority
schools nationally.

Steve Aldridge, managing director of Asbestos Consultancy &
Management Services, based in Lenton, said the problem was a
"ticking time bomb".

He said: "Because it takes so long for asbestos-related health
problems to materialise, this problem is a ticking time bomb
which, in future, will cost councils significantly more than the
GBP10 million in compensation they have already paid out.

"Children are an extremely precious commodity, so there should be
higher levels of compliance for asbestos management in schools.
Many schools simply aren't aware of what their responsibilities
are in relation to asbestos."

Each school has an asbestos register and management plan for the
material, which covers a wide range of issues from training to
dealing with emergencies. Head teachers are responsible for
maintaining this plan, which is audited every year.

The National Union of Teachers has claimed that up to 300 adults
die every year from asbestos-related illnesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rules for Transfer Stations Customers Changing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metro News reported that customers dropping off leftovers from
their most recent renovation projects will have to make sure their
loads meet new standards that go into effect April 1.

That's when the two Metro-owned transfer stations will change
their drop-off procedures to further limit possible asbestos
exposure to staff and visitors. Since last spring, Metro has
required proof that certain construction materials arriving at its
transfer stations do not contain asbestos. Beginning April 1, the
list of construction materials requiring testing for asbestos will
expand to include drywall and other products.

"These changes are important to ensure the health and safety of
our customers and our facility workers, as well as to ensure
continued operation of the transfer station," said Penny Erickson,
a manager in Metro's Property and Environmental Services
Department.

The changes come after the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality saw an increase in materials containing asbestos at local
facilities not permitted to take asbestos. Since then, the DEQ
asked Metro for a more thorough and comprehensive list of
prohibited items that may contain asbestos.

"These types of suspect materials we are screening for are very
common in construction and remodeling projects," Erickson said.
"Because of that, many of our customers could be impacted with
longer waits and rejected loads."

Though no longer commonly found in modern building materials,
asbestos has not been completely prohibited in new materials sold
in the United States, and it still poses a threat to people when
openly exposed.

Asbestos was mostly used in a variety of construction materials
from the 1940s through the 1970s, but is still considered
dangerous since it's linked to three different types of cancer,
including lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. For more
detailed information about bans on asbestos in the United States,
check out the Environmental Protection Agency's overview on the
mineral.

Building materials ranging from vinyl flooring to wallboard to
ceiling tiles can contain asbestos. It was used in glues, tapes,
and many other construction products in the mid 20th century.

"When in doubt, have it checked out by a qualified inspector or
lab prior to doing any remodeling work," said Erickson. "Be sure
to bring proof of that with you when delivering the load."

Asbestos poses a threat mostly when disturbed or damaged, so
materials that haven't been disturbed probably haven't released
the toxic fibers. Erickson says that a proactive step to take
prior to beginning any project at home, is to find out whether the
updated list of prohibited items contains any of the products you
may plan to get rid of, such as drywall, stucco, gaskets and
insulation.

"Plan ahead when considering a remodeling project," Erickson said.
"Call for information concerning our rules to make sure you know
what is needed to dispose of your materials."

Material that could contain asbestos must be tested by a certified
lab before it can be brought to a Metro transfer station. Loads of
construction waste that contain asbestos or that do not have
proper paperwork will be turned away.

While materials containing asbestos cannot be accepted at a Metro
transfer station, Metro can receive up to two 25-pound bags of
asbestos-containing materials per residential customer per day at
its two separate household hazardous waste facilities. These
materials must be properly prepared before they come to the
hazardous waste facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teacher Dies From Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
Isobel Frodsham, writing for Mail Online, reported that a former
teacher died after being exposed to asbestos in schools, a coroner
has ruled.

Sue Stephens, 68, worked as a teacher in Buckinghamshire for 30
years before retiring in 2008 to Crediton, Devon.

The grandmother was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, which
can lie dormant for decades, in 2014 and died in June this year.

During the inquest, held at Exeter's County Hall, the court heard
that Sue had written a statement saying she recalled construction
work being undertaken at another school and asbestos being removed
by builders in the classrooms during lessons.

In the statement, she said: 'Previously I had been very fit and
well. This diagnosis came as an enormous shock to me and my
family. My symptoms started around 18 months ago.'

She said at one school she used a staple gun to pin children's
work to the walls.

She said: 'I would stand on a table to do this and it took around
two hours. I did it one afternoon every fortnight and I believe I
was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres.

'I was never told it (the school) contained asbestos or to take
extra care.'


Greater Devon coroner Dr Elizabeth Earland concluded that Sue died
from industrial disease.

She said: 'I'm satisfied Mrs Stephens was exposed to asbestos
during her time as a teacher in schools in Buckinghamshire which
underwent building repairs from the 90s upwards.

'On the balance of probability, and noting the type of repairs at
the time and the materials involved, I believe this led to fatal
asbestos exposure.'

Prior to her death, Sue's daughter, Lucie, launched a petition
calling for the government to make it law to begin the removal of
asbestos from all schools by 2028.

The petition has more than 9,000 signatures.

A Buckinghamshire County Council spokesman said: 'We would like to
express our sympathy to Sue Stephens' family on their sad loss.

'We are, however, unable to make any comment on individual cases.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salvage Owner Jailed for Asbestos Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
it's a situation that is the closest one might come to a crystal
ball: the sentencing of a salvage company owner who allowed the
demolition of an asbestos-laden tire plant without protecting his
workers from asbestos fibers. As it takes asbestos mesothelioma
some 30 years to emerge in most cases, it is not beyond the realm
of possibility that new asbestos claims may well be stemming from
this incident three decades from now.

The US Attorney's Office for the Western District of Kentucky
launched an asbestos lawsuit against the owner of S & S Salvage
LLC after employees of the salvage company were found to be
engaged in the demolition of a former Goodyear tire plant without
breathing apparatuses or respirators. Insulation materials
believed to contain asbestos were also not properly wetted down,
in violation of the Clean Air Act.

Timothy J. Smith pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the
Clean Air Act and was sentenced to 90 days in jail by Magistrate
Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, followed by two years' probation.

Given the carcinogenic properties of asbestos and the potential
for asbestos cancer and Mesothelioma, asbestos abatement is taken
seriously and enforced when violations are found.

According to court documents, a local inspector noted that a crew
working for S & S Salvage was seen in the throes of demolishing
the former tire plant located in Madisonville, Kentucky. The work,
it has been reported, was taking place in violation of a rule that
requires the submission of written notice ten days prior to the
commencement of demolition on any structure containing asbestos.

On two previous occasions, the defendant had been cited for not
providing proper advance notice before commencing demolition
projects. Those enforcements were conducted by the Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection.

With regard to the 2014 incident which eventually landed the
salvage company owner in jail, the inspector returned a month
later to witness the work continuing. Boilers were dismantled and
asbestos-laden insulation was being removed and tossed into
dumpsters. The insulation was not dampened down as is required --
nor were salvage workers wearing any kind of breathing apparatus
to protect them.

"These federal safety guidelines for hazardous materials exist to
protect us -- to protect workers and protect the community," US
Attorney John Kuhn, with the US Attorney's Office for the Western
District of Kentucky, said in a statement on December 2. "Our
fervent hope is that 90 days of incarceration will encourage Mr.
Smith and others to think long and hard before once again
violating regulations that ensure worker and community safety."

The asbestos lawsuit is United States of America v Timothy J.
Smith, Case No: 4:16-mj-00010, in US District Court Western
District of Kentucky, Owensboro.

In recent years a host of plaintiffs have come forward with
asbestos claims following alleged exposure to asbestos in plants,
industrial environments and the ship building industry in an era
where asbestos was more commonly used, without benefit from a
wide-ranging understanding of the carcinogenic properties of
asbestos.

It takes mesothelioma, asbestosis and other forms of asbestos
cancer 30 years or more to emerge, in most cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Injured Through Secondary Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a woman
diagnosed with mesothelioma alleges she was exposed to asbestos
through her husband's and father's clothes.

Sharon A. Barrilleaux filed a suit against Ingersoll-Rand Co., et
al. in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on Nov. 2.

According to the claim, the plaintiff was exposed to dangerous
levels of asbestos fibers brought home on her husband's clothing
from his job. She also alleges she was exposed to asbestos fibers
in the same manner through her father.

The defendants are accused of negligence because they designed,
manufactured, sold and or supplied asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount in damages. The
plaintiff is represented by Amanda Ballay, Frank J. Swarr, Mickey
P. Landry, Philip Hoffman and Matthew Clark of Landry & Swarr in
New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to Division C Judge Sidney H. Cates IV.

The Orleans Parish Civil District Court Case number 2016-10919


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers, Land Owners Have Duty to Protect
------------------------------------------------------------
Guy W. Stilson, Esq. -- Gstilson@lowball.com -- at Low, Ball &
Lynch, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that in
the cases captioned CECELIA KESNER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, Real Party
in Interest. CECELIA KESNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PNEUMO
ABEX, LLC, Defendant and Respondent; JOSHUA HAVER, et al.
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant and
Respondent, Nos. S219534, S219919 (Calif.), the Supreme Court of
California, in a unanimous opinion, held:

"Where it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing,
or personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the
premises to household members, employers have a duty to take
reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission. This duty
also applies to premises owners who use asbestos on their
property, subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses
generally applicable to premises owners, such as the rules of
contractor liability. Importantly, we hold that this duty extends
only to members of a worker's household. Because the duty is
premised on the foreseeability of both regularity and intensity of
contact that occurs in a worker's home, it does not extend beyond
this circumscribed category of potential plaintiffs.

Decedent Johnny Blaine Kesner, Jr. spent an average of three
nights each week at the home of his uncle, George Kesner, from
1973 to 1979. George worked at Abex, where he was exposed to
asbestos released in the manufacture of brake shoes. Asbestos
fibers came home with him on his person and Johnny was exposed.
Johnny developed mesothelioma and died. The Kesner claim was based
on employer negligence. Abex moved for and was granted a nonsuit
based on Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, a
case which held that the take-home exposure theory was not
viable."

Decedent Lynne Haver was married to a man who, from 1972 to 1974,
was exposed to pipe insulation and other products at his place of
work. Lynne Haver developed mesothelioma and died. The Haver claim
was based on premises liability. The defendant demurred based on
Campbell and the demurrer was sustained.

The Supreme Court reversed both decisions and overruled Campbell.

The Supreme Court found: "A reasonably thoughtful person making
industrial use of asbestos during the time periods at issue in
this case (i.e., the mid-1970s) would take into account the
possibility that asbestos fibers could become attached to an
employee's clothing or person, travel to that employee's home, and
thereby reach other persons who lived in the home." Thus, the
Supreme Court determined that take-home exposure was foreseeable,
at least as of 1972. The court's opinion provides several pages of
information regarding the enactment in 1952 of U.S. Department of
Labor standards for federal contractors, a 1934 recommendation
from the International Labour Office's Standard Code of Industrial
Hygiene, and the enactment of OSHA in 1972, all of which addressed
the issue of preventing worker's family members from being
experiencing take-home exposure. The court also noted, "as early
as 1965, scholarly journals documented fatal cases of mesothelioma
where patients' only exposure was through living with an asbestos
worker." The court held it did not matter whether the plaintiff's
legal theory was one of negligence or premises liability because
take-home exposure liability is viable under either theory.

The court did not say that either the Kesner or Haver plaintiffs
are necessarily entitled to a damages award, only that they are
entitled to move forward to trial. The court characterized its
ruling as simply rejecting a "categorical" rule precluding take-
home exposure liability, and pointed out that the plaintiffs still
must prove the Rutherford factors (duration and proximity, etc. of
exposure) and show that any exposure attributable to the defendant
is substantial before liability may attach.

Comment and Evaluation

This case is a significant blow to asbestos defendants. The idea
that it is foreseeable to an employer that a worker's family
member could develop a disease from exposure to asbestos brought
home on its worker's person has been the subject of heated debate.
That debate has now been resolved in California, and the
plaintiffs have prevailed. Defendants may still want to pursue a
"lack of foreseeability" defense where the take-home exposures
ended before 1972, but the Supreme Court's reference to earlier
papers and recommendations means that convincing a court that the
exposure or resulting disease was not foreseeable will be an
uphill battle, with the slope getting increasingly steeper as the
take-home exposures near the 1970s.

We had seen a substantial increase in take-home exposure cases
before Campbell. Based on Campbell, defendants had won a
significant number of summary judgment and other dispositive
motions in take-home exposure cases. When the Supreme Court agreed
to review Kesner and Haver, lower courts started putting those
motions on hold pending this opinion. Now that the Supreme Court
has decided this issue in favor of plaintiffs, we expect to see
more cases alleging take-home exposure in the near future.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 1, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/zUN3El from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi, Cindy Saxey, Josiah W. Parker;
Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood and Ted W. Pelletier for
Petitioner and for Plaintiff and Appellant Cecelia Kesner.

Brayton Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Gilbert L. Purcell and Gary L.
Brayton as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and
Appellant Cecelia Kesner.

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of
California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff
and Appellant Cecelia Kesner.

Walters Kraus & Paul, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien for
Plaintiffs and Appellants Joshua Haver, et al.

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of
California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants
Joshua Haver, et al.

No appearance for Respondent Superior Court.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Robert H. Wright, Curt Cutting;
Brydon Hugo & Parker, Hugo Parker, Edward R. Hugo, James C. Parker
and Jeffrey Kaufman for Real Party in Interest and for Defendant
and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

McKenna Long & Aldridge, Lisa L. Oberg; McDermott Will & Emery and
Colleen E. Baime for CertainTeed Corporation and Honeywell
International Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in
Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Snell & Wilmer, Mary-Christine Sungaila and Jenny Hua for
International Association of Defense Counsel and Federation of
Defense & Corporate Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real
Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Fred J. Hiestand for The Civil Justice Association of California
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant
and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Deborah J. La Fetra for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent
Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Armstrong & Associates and William H. Armstrong for Resolute
Management as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest
and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Schiff Hardin and Eliot S. Jubelirer for Owens-Illinois, Inc., as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant
and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens and Patrick Gregory for
Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers,
American Tort Reform Association and NFIB Small Business Legal
Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and
Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Gordon & Rees and Don Willenburg for Association of Defense
Counsel of Northern California and Nevada as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent
Pneumo Abex, LLC.

Horvitz & Levy, Curt Cutting and Steven Fleischman for Association
of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo
Abex, LLC.

Sims Law Firm, Selim Mounedji; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Veronica
Lewis, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Joshua S. Lipshutz and Alexander
M. Fenner for Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Fred J. Hiestand; Erika C. Frank and Heather L. Wallace for The
California Chamber of Commerce and The Civil Justice Association
of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens and Patrick Gregory for
Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States
of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort
Reform Association and NFIB Small Business Legal Center as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Snell & Wilmer, Mary-Christine Sungaila and Jenny Hua for
International Association of Defense Counsel and Federation of
Defense & Corporate Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Deborah J. La Fetra for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae
on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Louis P. Warchot, Daniel Saphire; Murphy, Campbell, Alliston &
Quinn and Stephanie L. Quinn, Esq. -- squinn@murphycampbell.com --
for Association of American Railroads as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

King & Spalding, Peter A. Strotz, Esq. -- pstrotz@kslaw.com --
Steven D. Park, Esq. -- spark@kslaw.com -- and Ethan P. Davis,
Esq. -- edavis@kslaw.com -- for Western States Petroleum
Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent
BNSF Railway Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ban Little Impact on Sweden Mesothelioma Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden have just
released new findings on the mesothelioma risk posed by various
different jobs and its relationship to the country's 1982 asbestos
ban. Surviving Mesothelioma has just published a new article on
the findings.

Of the 280 occupations analyzed in the newly-published study, 24
of them were found to carry an elevated risk for malignant
mesothelioma.

"Among men, increased risks of mesothelioma of the pleura were
observed in male-dominated occupations, with the greatest
elevation of risk among plumbers," writes Nils Plato, a Chemical
Engineer with the Institute of Environmental Medicine at the
Karolinska Institute.

According to the report in Epidemiology and Health, as of 2009,
the ban on asbestos instituted in 1982 had yet to show any "clear
effect" on the number of mesothelioma diagnoses in the country.
"Because mesothelioma takes decades to develop, it can decades for
an asbestos ban to impact incidence of the disease," says Alex
Strauss, Managing Editor of Surviving Mesothelioma. "This study is
a clear argument for 'sooner is better than later' when it comes
to banning asbestos."

Although 58 countries have now banned asbestos because of its link
to mesothelioma, the US has yet to do so.

Plato, N, et al, "Occupations and mesothelioma in Sweden: updated
incidence in men and women in the 27 years after the asbestos
ban", September 20, 2016, Epidemiology and Health, eCollection
2016, http://www.e-epih.org/journal/view.php?number=863


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pupils, Staff Get GBP10MM Pay for Illness
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellis, writing for Mirror, reported that coucils have paid
out more than GBP10m in compensation to pupils and staff made ill
by exposure to asbestos in schools, new figures show.

Teachers and pupils, as well as support staff, are among the 220
people who have made claims against local authorities over the
last five years.

Campaigners say there were 99 reported incidents of asbestos
exposure in schools during the same period, but believe the real
figure could be much higher.

Freedom of Information requests to local councils to 173 local
authorities revealed the shock figures and campaigners claim
failure to remove asbestos from schools is a national scandal.

Rachael Reeves MP, chair of the Asbestos in Schools group, said:
"This is a ticking time bomb because very few teachers and parents
know that there is asbestos in schools. The very least we should
do is make sure that this information is available to them."

Campaigners and Britain's biggest unions have backed the Mirror's
Asbestos Timebomb campaign for a national audit of all 23,000
schools in England to discover the extent of the problem and
remove the killer dust.

Asbestos was used extensively in school buildings in the 1960s in
ceilings, walls and lagging pipes and if left undisturbed it poses
no risk.

But the material, which was banned from buildings in 1999, can
cause deadly diseases, including mesothelioma, a form of lung
cancer, which claims more than 2,500 lives a year.

The FOI request revealed a "shocking" lack of consistency across
local authorities with some claiming not to know how many schools
contain asbestos, some withholding information and others stating
that responsibility lies with schools.

Amanda Brown, Assistant General Secretary of the National Union of
Teachers (NUT), said: "87% of schools have asbestos. 319 teachers
have died from mesothelioma since 1980, and 205 of these deaths
have occurred since.

"We do not know exactly how many adults have died because of
childhood exposure to asbestos in schools but estimates have been
put as high as 200-300 people each year.

"These are shocking and unacceptable facts. Children and school
staff are being exposed on a daily basis to this silent killer.

"It is high time that Government implemented a plan of phased
removal of asbestos from our schools to protect future
generations."

Government advice is to leave asbestos alone. Education Secretary
Justine Greening said:" In the overwhelming number of cases we do
remove asbestos from schools, but in some cases our experts are
telling us its better to leave the material in place."

A spokesperson for the Department for Education added: "The health
and safety of children and staff in our schools is vital - that's
why we are investing GBP23bn in school buildings by 2021.

"This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and that the
amount in school buildings continues to reduce over time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lansing Inmate's Asbestos Suit Can Move Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wingerter, writing for CJOnline.com, reported that the
Kansas Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit by a Lansing
Correctional Facility inmate who claims he will die an early death
from exposure to asbestos in the prison's library.

Between 1997 and 2010, Jeffrey Sperry spent most days in the LCF
law library. When guards searched the library for contraband each
week, insulation containing friable asbestos fell on his desk and
work area, he says. Unaware of the asbestos, Sperry often wiped it
away without protective gear.

Friable asbestos fibers, if inhaled, can become lodged in the
lungs and digestive tract, causing lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis, a disabling and often fatal disease for which there is
no cure.

In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency found the state
corrections department violated the Clean Air Act when
transporting asbestos debris at Topeka Correctional Facility. That
prompted an audit by the Kansas Department of Corrections that
found asbestos abatement was needed above the library in Lansing
where Sperry worked.

When Sperry, 53, sought medical assistance, he claims a doctor at
the prison said there was nothing he could do for him. When he
sought mental health counseling, he claims a psychologist told him
"he should not worry about the fact that he will become seriously
ill and die prematurely."

For several years, Sperry, working without an attorney, filed
grievances with the KDOC. They were denied, first by a warden and
then by the secretary of KDOC. When he took his claims to
Leavenworth County District Court, KDOC filed motions to have them
dismissed.

Judge Dan Wiley dismissed Sperry's lawsuit because Sperry did not
file a complaint within 10 days of being exposed. Sperry appealed,
claiming he had, in fact, filed a grievance form after learning of
the asbestos exposure, albeit the wrong form. He blamed the prison
for failing to provide him with the correct form.

Sperry is seeking an injunction requiring KDOC to treat his
medical needs at facilities of his choosing, an injunction
ordering KDOC to remove all asbestos and other contaminants from
LCF, and more than $75,000 in damages.

In June, he caught a break in the form of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion that found inmates must exhaust their administrative
complaints before moving onto lawsuits but don't need to prove
they have done so. The opinion undercut one of KDOC's arguments:
that Sperry failed to prove he had filed all possible
administrative complaints.

The matter made its way to the state's highest court where, on
Nov. 23, Sperry, still typing his own legal briefs without the
help of a lawyer, found some success. In a unanimous ruling, the
Kansas Supreme Court ruled Wiley, the Leavenworth judge, erred
when he dismissed Sperry's lawsuit for procedural reasons.

The case now returns to Leavenworth County District Court for
further deliberations, including a possible trial.

The case is JEFFREY SPERRY, Appellant, v. DAVID McKUNE (Warden),
et al., (Raymond Roberts, Kansas Department of Corrections),
Appellees, No. 112,455 (Ks.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated November 23, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/uumddO from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey J. Sperry, appellant, was on the brief pro se.

Fred W. Phelps, Jr., legal counsel, Kansas Department of
Corrections, was on the brief for appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: High Court Grants Woman Right to Sue Pipe-Maker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reported that the
Georgia Supreme Court has given a woman suffering from a fatal
lung disease the right to continue with her lawsuit against the
company that made the asbestos-containing pipe she claims caused
her illness.

Marcella Fletcher filed her lawsuit in South Georgia's
Thomasville, where her father worked for 35 years with the city
water department until his retirement in 1983. When she was 8
years old, she began laundering his work clothes, which were
covered with a grayish dust that would poof into a fine mist as
she shook them out. Decades later, she was diagnosed with
malignant pleural mesothelioma. She sued the maker of the pipe her
father cut and fit, Pennsylvania-based CertainTeed Corp., in
Thomas County State Court. But Judge Mark Mitchell threw out her
lawsuit, granting CertainTeed's motion for summary judgment.

Fletcher appealed. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial
judge's dismissal on two points. Wednesday, the Supreme Court
agreed with the Court of Appeals on only one of those points, but
that's enough to keep the lawsuit alive.

The high court reversed the intermediate court and ruled with the
trial judge on tossing Fletcher's failure-to-warn claim, ruling
that CertainTeed could not have had a duty to warn someone whose
contact with the product could not be foreseen.

The surviving claim in Fletcher's lawsuit is defective design.
In an opinion written by Justice Carol Hunstein, the court
unanimously agreed with the Court of Appeals that the case had
been tossed based on the wrong case. Hunstein wrote that the
guiding decision is not CSX Transportation v. Williams , 278 Ga.
888 (2005). In the CSX case, written by Justice Robert Benham, "we
held that an employer's duty to provide a safe workplace does not
extend to third party, non-employees who come into contact with
asbestos-tainted work clothing," Hunstein wrote.

The CSX decision, Hunstein wrote, addressed the employer-employee
relationship. "This case, however, presents an entirely different
question," she added. Because Fletcher alleged that CertainTeed
"negligently designed its asbestos-laden products," Hunstein
wrote, "the risk-utility analysis applies to determine whether the
manufacturer is liable."

Hunstein wrote that the guide should be the Georgia Supreme Court
ruling for another case, Banks v. ICI Americas Inc. , 264 Ga. 732
(1994), which spells out a risk-utility test for assessing the
reasonableness of a product design given the probability and
seriousness of safety hazards. Hunstein also wrote the Banks
decision.

It's a legally significant distinction, according to Fletcher's
attorney, Robert Buck of the Buck Law Firm. Buck said by email
that his client "is gratified that the Supreme Court has
reaffirmed the existence of a duty on the part of product
manufactures to design reasonably safe products that extends to
all Georgians."

Buck said Hunstein's ruling "will also have [an] impact around the
country because asbestos companies have often erroneously cited
CSX Transp. v. Williams for the proposition that Georgia
eliminated take home asbestos claims. This decision eliminates
that false argument."

David Marshall of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, who
represents CertainTeed, read it differently. Marshall said in an
emailed statement that his client prevailed "on the larger issue
of whether a manufacturer owes a duty to warn family members of
potential hazards in a take-home exposure case."

"This will favorably impact companies that are defendants in
asbestos and similar cases here and nationwide. The trend of
courts around the country has been to limit such take-home claims
because they are so remote. The issue on which the plaintiff
prevailed, the negligent design claim, is often not pursued by
plaintiffs because of proof challenges at trial," Marshall said.
He added, "All in all, we are pleased with the result."

The defense team includes E. Elaine Shofner of Hawkins Parnell as
well as Neil Lloyd and Elizabeth Guise of Schiff Hardin. At oral
arguments, the defense team also included former Chief Justice
Leah Ward Sears. But Sears has since left Schiff Hardin and the
case behind and joined Smith, Gambrell & Russell.

The case is CertainTeed v. Fletcher, No. S15G1903 (Ga.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated November 30, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/pS8ZFj from Leagle.com.

Erin Elaine Shofner, HAWKINS, PARNELL, THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, for
Appellant.

David C. Marshall, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP, for
Appellant.

Michael K. Wolensky, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, for Appellant.

Robert Cape Buck, BUCK LAW FIRM, for Appellee.

Leonard Searcy, II, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., for Amicus
Appellant.

Mark A. Behrens, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., for Amicus
Appellant.

Cary Silverman, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., for Amicus
Appellant.

William V. Custer, IV, BYRAN CAVE LLP, for Amicus Appellant.

Edwin Montgomery Cook, BRYAN CAVE LLP, for Amicus Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Priority Action for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Reinstein, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that
asbestos has been killing unwitting Americans for more than a
century, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a
historic step toward ending this tragic trend.

Asbestos will be one of the first 10 high-risk chemicals evaluated
and regulated as the EPA implements the Lautenberg Act, putting us
on the path to finally achieving a federal ban.

This couldn't come at a more crucial time. President-elect Trump
has made clear his intentions to scale back the EPA drastically,
and he's also given high praise to asbestos, has used it heavily
in his own real estate developments, and claims the movement to
ban asbestos is a mafia conspiracy. Anti-asbestos advocates have
been rightfully concerned that if asbestos wasn't addressed before
Trump takes office, it could mean a resurgence in use rather than
restrictions.

By including asbestos in this top 10 list for priority action, the
outgoing EPA team set legally enforceable deadlines and
requirements around asbestos assessment and regulation, avoiding
the concerns of Trump derailing our fight for a federal ban on
this deadly toxin. Fortunately, these forthcoming regulations are
mandated by a congressionally passed law and are not easily
reformed or repealed.

On the Path to a Ban

With asbestos locked in for early action, we're on a 3-5 year
timeline to regulation that looks something like this:

   * EPA must release a scoping document within six months for
each chemical, which will include the hazards, exposures,
conditions of use, and vulnerable populations the agency plans to
consider for the risk evaluation.

   * EPA will be under statutory deadline to complete a risk
evaluation within 3 years to determine whether the chemicals
present an unreasonable risk to humans and the environment.

   * If a chemical is found to pose unreasonable risk, EPA must
take regulatory action to mitigate that risk within two years.

This means a final rule -- one that bans asbestos in all forms --
would likely be enacted by 2021. But given the extensive legwork
that EPA has already done evaluating the dangers of asbestos,
there's a potential that this could happen even sooner.

"EPA spent 10 years exploring the need for the asbestos ban and
developing the regulation. On the basis of its review of over 100
studies of the health risks of asbestos as well as public comments
on the proposed rule, EPA determined that asbestos is a potential
carcinogen at all levels of exposure -- that is that it has no
known safe exposure level," Natural Resource and Environment
Director John Stephenson said in a 2006 testimony before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

President-elect Trump has made clear his intentions to scale back
the EPA drastically, and he's also given high praise to asbestos,
has used it heavily in his own real estate developments, and
claims the movement to ban asbestos is a mafia conspiracy.

EPA has already tried to ban asbestos, based on the evidence from
this decade of research. In 1989, EPA issued a full federal ban on
asbestos, only to have it overturned when the chemical industry
sued, claiming the restriction would be bad for business. The
EPA's inability to regulate one of the most notoriously lethal
chemicals in existence highlighted the need to empower the agency
with stronger chemical safety laws that would prioritize public
health over profits. In fact, when President Obama signed into law
the Lautenberg Act reforms that expanded the EPA's authority, he
singled out asbestos as the poster child for the failure of the
chemical safety laws we'd been living under since the 70s.

Righting a Century of Wrongs

"Under the new law, we now have the power to require safety
reviews of all chemicals in the marketplace," EPA Assistant
Administrator Jim Jones said in a statement. "We can ensure the
public that we will deliver on the promise to better protect
public health and the environment."

The new law includes some key points that will prevent chemical
industry lobbyists from upending this important work -- namely,
requiring EPA to review existing and new chemicals based on a
health-based standard, and not the cost of any restriction or ban.
This measure will prove invaluable, as the chemical industry
wasted no time mounting their opposition to the top 10
announcement and the evaluations to follow.

"It is important to note that a chemical's inclusion in this first
group of ten chemicals does not in and of itself indicate anything
about the safety of the chemical. Its listing is simply an
acknowledgment by the Agency that it plans to conduct risk
evaluations on these ten chemicals before others," the American
Chemistry Council (ACC) said in a statement. The ACC represents
the chloralkali industry -- responsible for nearly 90% of U.S.
asbestos consumption -- and has worked long and hard to keep
asbestos in legal in efforts to protect their profit margin,
regardless of the irreversible harm they cause with continued use.

The EPA followed through on this promise to protect public health
and the environment from unnecessarily dangerous chemicals
regardless of industry pressure, signaling the success of the
Lautenberg Act reforms. For the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (ADAO) and asbestos victims everywhere, this is a
significant victory in a years-long David and Goliath battle that
pitted victims against deep-pocketed chemical industry lobbyists.
Today, with the help of a forward-thinking EPA, Congressional
champions, and countless supporters, we've proven that with enough
grit, determination, and faith in the democratic process, the
Davids of the world truly can make change happen.



                            *********

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  * * *