CAR_Public/170113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 10



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Faces Labor Class Action in California
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Sues Over Pravastatin Price-fixing
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Sues Over Desonide Price-fixing
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey
ALABAMA: Care Provider Testified in Inmate Mental Health Case

ALERE INC: KSF Commences Investigation Into Abott Acquisition
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Second Securities Class Action
AMAZON PROCESSING: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. of California
ANZ BANK: Seeks Dismissal of Singapore Rate Rigging Case in US
ARIZONA SUMMIT: Judge Dismisses Consumer Fraud Claims

ARMANDO MONTELONGO: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Texas
ASHLEY MADISON: Parent Seeks to Arbitrate Data Breach Claims
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: NL Court Certifies Disgruntled Players' Suit
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Gambler Pleased with Class Action Certification
AUTOZONE INC: Oregon Appeals Court Affirms Class Certification

BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss Appeals From W.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Cir.
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorneys' Class Action Fee Request
BAXTER INT'L: Robins Kaplan Named Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
BRISTOL HARBOUR: Settles Workers' Labor Class Action for $412,500
CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Nayab" Suit in Southern Dist. of California

CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
CARL'S JR: Workers Urged to Testify at Confirmation Hearing
CELADON GROUP: Wins Partial Judgment in "Blakley" Suit
CEPHALON INC: April 13 Provigil Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
CHEMTALL INC: Remaining Settlement Money Donated to Universities

CHICAGO, IL: Speed-Camera Ticket Notices Sent to Motorists
CHINA NORTH: April 4 Fairness Hearing on $925K Class Settlement
CHRYSLER: May 2018 Trial Set in "uConnect" Class Action
CITIBANK NA: Alaska High Court Affirms Arbitration Ruling
CLAY ROAD: "Tayum" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CLEAR SKIES: Faces Class Action Over "Extortion" Conspiracy
COMPANY STORE: Credit Card Receipts Risk ID Theft, Suit Says
CONAGRA FOODS: Recent Ruling Not Bad for Class Action Defendants
CONTINENTAL HOME: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
COOKNSOLO INC: Faces "Peters" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DOLE PACKAGED: Sued for Falsely Marketing Fruit & Oatmeal Goods
DR. REDDY'S: Faces Rochester Suit Over Divalproex Price-fixing
DUKE ENERGY: Class-Action Settlement Checks Waiting for Approval
DUKE ENERGY: SPDR ETF Receives Class Action Settlement Payout
DUPONT: Plans to Appeal $10.5MM Verdict in C8 Exposure Case

DUPONT: January 17 Trial Scheduled in C8 Exposure MDL
EASY PC: State Farm No Duty to Defend TCPA Class Action
EMERY FEDERAL: Court Okays "Vigna" Settlement, Cuts Lawyer Fees
EMORY COLLEGE: Students Demanding Free Tampons on Campus
ENDOLOGIX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in California

ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ETHICON INC: Judge Says Defective Mesh Judgment Should Stand
FALLS FESTIVAL: Suit Mulled Against Organizers Over Crowd Crush
FANDUEL: Pre-Trial Proceedings Underway in Mass. Class Action
FSL MANAGEMENT: 6th Cir. Affirms "Whitlock" Settlement Approval

FULTON FRIEDMAN: Court Says Asset Acceptance Liable in Class Suit
GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settles Service Technicians' Class Action
GERMANY: Two Indigenous Groups File Class Action Over Genocide
GOLDEN PONDS: Mother, Son Sue Over Foodborne Illness

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Branch" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
GROVETOWN CITY, GA: Settles Water Utility Rate Class Action
HANNIBAL, MO: Court Grants Redflex Motion for Judgment
HERTZ CORP: Court Trims Claims in "Spotswood" Amended Complaint
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Court Tosses Retirees' Class Action

ITT EDUCATION: Group of Former Students File Class Action
J.D. MELLBERG: Faces "Portillo" Suit in C.D. of California
JAY PEAK: Investors Want Court to Certify Fraud Class Action
JC PENNEY: KSF Investigates Alleged False Reference Pricing
JONES WOLF: Debt Collectors Take on Lawyers in New Jersey

JPMORGAN CHASE: Montero's Bid to Vacate Arbitration Order Nixed
KANE CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Abrupt Shutdown, Bankruptcy
KANSAS, USA: Brown Files Appeal in Kansas Supreme Court
LA FURNITURE: Sued Over Unlawful Information Capture Policy
LIPOCINE INC: Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff

LS HOLDINGS: Faces "Newsom" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
LUNDAY-THAGARD: Pichardo Accuses Violation of Calif. Labor Law
MADISON COUNTY: Jan. 17 Opt-Out Deadline in Court Fees Class Suit
MCDONALD'S: No Class Certification in Wage-Theft Action
MCWANE INC: May 23 Cast Iron Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MDC TAVERN: Faces "Brooks" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: Diluted Chemo Victims to Challenge Settlement
MICHIGAN: UIA Class Action Awaits Oral Arguments
MICHIGAN: Major Overhaul Coming in UIA Following Class Suit
MIDWEST SERVICING: Violates Debt Collection Laws, Salazar Says

MILBERG LLP: Faces Suit by Kahn Swick Over Vioxx Fees
MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Homeowners Sue Over Sinking Tower
MILZY OF VILLA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Reiman" Suit Says
MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Rigged Jackpots

MYPILLOW: BBB Revokes Accreditation Following Class Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces New England Patriot Fans Suit in Mass.
NATIONAL MILK: Settles Milk Price-Fixing Class Action
NEOVASC INC: Wins Dismissal of "Grobler" Class Suit
NESTLE SA: Sued for Underfilling Raisinets Candy Boxes

OCWEN LOAN: Belcher Files Amended Suit, Court Rules on Discovery
ORTHOBANC LLC: "Mickler" Suit Alleges Job Discrimination
PAREXEL INT'L: Ex-Employee Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Work
PARKING CONCEPTS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
PATTERN ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action

PETSMART INC: "Leeds" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
PHC INC: Feb. 27 Trial Against Directors Set
PHILADELPHIA: Judge Declares Landlord Liens Invalid, Null, & Void
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Case Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $30MM Fees
PILOT FLYING J: Ruling May Return Suit to Federal Court

REPAIRCLINIC LLC: Faces "Gamez" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
RS&H INC: "Jones" Suit Alleges Job Discrimination
SAGE CLIENT: "Sarego" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SANIMAX: Green Bay Residents Seek Final Approval of Settlement
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: March 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

SCOTT AND ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Maintain Surety Bond
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
TARO PHARMA: Faces Rochester Suit Over Generic Fluocinonide
TELIGENT INC: Faces Rochester Suit Over Generic Fluocinonide
TENET HEALTHCARE: "S.B." Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.

TG THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
THERANOS INC: Sacks 155 Employees Amidst Class Action
TRIBUNE CO: Judge Dismisses Claims Against Shareholders
TRUEVISIONS: May Face Lawsuit Due to Cancellations of TV Channels
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suva Says Must Pay Social Security for Drivers

UBS FINANCIAL: FRCP Rule 23 Certification Requirements Analyzed
UMTH LAND: "Fannin" Suit Remanded to Delaware Court of Chancery
UTILIMAP CORP: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Martinez" Suit
VANGUARD HOME: Appeals Ruling in "Davis" Overtime Suit
VICTORY LAB: "Diego" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Compensation
VOLKSWAGEN AG: In Advanced Talks to Settle Emission Criminal Case
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ex-Compliance Head Arrested in Emissions Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Six Employees Indicted in Emissions Scandal
WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Quiles" Suit Says

WATTS REGULATOR: Inks Settlements to Solve Floodsafe Suits
WELLS FARGO: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $35.5MM
WELLS FARGO: Hearing on $35MM Settlement Set for Jan. 24
WELLS FARGO: "Varga" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
WILLIAM HILL: Spanish Gamblers Mull Discrimination Class Action

WOODLAND DIRECT: Faces "Gamez" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
WV AMERICAN: Efforts to Finalize Water Crisis Settlement Ongoing
XYTEX CORP: Judge Tosses Most Claims in Sperm Bank Donor Case
YAHOO! INC: Verizon Shareholders Raise Concern Over Data Breach
ZIMMER BIOMET: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit

* DOL Initiative May Help Small Businesses Avert Legal Woes
* Food Labeling-Related Class Actions Clogs Federal Courts
* President-Elect Trump's Businesses May Become Legal Targets
* Proskauer Rose's Oncidi Reviews California Employment Cases
* Rule Changes Under Trump Expected to Hit Securities Litigation


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DAP, Warren Pumps Lose Bid to Dismiss "Vesper"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Abrogast" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Allowed To Correct Deficiencies in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Dismissed as Defendant in "Sumner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Ordered to Take Action vs. 2 Companies

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 65 PI Injury Suits at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,652 Asbestos, Silica Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Faces Asbestos Cases at Oct31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Co. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at  Oct. 31

ASBESTOS ALERT: Vistra Energy Has 30,900 Claims at Dec. 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Children's Hospital in Crumlin
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos Found in South Australia Ash Cloud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex Companies Fined for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY, Decorating Pose Asbestos Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Slate in Orange's Tests for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitter Launches Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. AG Targets Local Asbestos Abatement Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hidden Asbestos Drops $19K Bill on Homeowners
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Biopsy Essential To Correct Diagnosis


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Faces Labor Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a store manager has filed a class-action suit against his
former employer over allegations of violations of labor laws.

Carlos Aguirre filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Dec. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Aaron's Inc., doing business as
Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership, and Does 1-50 alleging violations
of labor and business and professions codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for the defendant from 2009 to 2016.  The plaintiff holds Aaron's
Inc. and Does 1-50 responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to provide accurate wage statements to the plaintiff,
failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks and
misclassified him as exempt.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid wages,
actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, all legal fees
and interest and any other relief as the court deems just.  He is
represented by Shaun Setareh and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group
in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-07384-JCS


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Sues Over Pravastatin Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Apotex
Corp., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc., USA, Glenmark
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan
Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
06661-CMR (E.D. Penn., December 27, 2016), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to raise, fix, and maintain prices, allocate
markets, and/or rig bids for generic pravastatin ("Pravastatin").

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              nurban@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Sues Over Desonide Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Perrigo Company plc, Perrigo New York, Inc.,
Sandoz, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06662-CMR (E.D. Penn., December 27, 2016),
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise, fix, and maintain
prices, allocate markets, and/or rig bids for generic generic
desonide ("Desonide").

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              nurban@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of a class consisting of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Agile Therapeutics, Inc.
securities between March 9, 2016 and January 3, 2017, inclusive.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than sixty days from the date of this notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-
9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss
this matter.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Twirla
contraceptive patch had an efficacy rating that fell below peer
group standards; (2) that over half of patients in its "Secure"
Phase 3 Study discontinued the study early; (3) that the Twirla
patch therefore allegedly had a slight chance of FDA approval; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about Agile's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 3, 2017, Agile disclosed statistical information
pertaining to its Phase 3 SECURE study analyzing the Company's
combined hormonal contraceptive patch Twirla. The study, which was
initiated at the request of the FDA, comes after the FDA rejected
Agile's initial marketing application back in 2013. The Company
cited "positive top-line results" in the study, yet reported an
efficacy measure that failed to meet the standard set by other
approved contraceptive patches. Additionally, 51.4% of subjects
opted to discontinue the study.

On this news, Agile stock fell nearly 64% during intraday trading
on January 4, 2017.

If you purchased shares of Agile during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than sixty days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.


ALABAMA: Care Provider Testified in Inmate Mental Health Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Davis, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reports that
roughly a month since a class action lawsuit against the Alabama
Department of Corrections first began, a mental health care
provider testified to a lack of consistent medical records within
DOC facilities.

The suit, brought on behalf of all 25,000 disabled Alabama
inmates, was filed in June 2014 by the Southern Poverty Law Center
and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program.

It alleges egregious neglect and deliberate indifference toward
all disabled inmates, but this phase of the trial focuses solely
on the mentally ill.

"Prisoners with mental illnesses or serious psychological problems
are entirely denied mental health care or provided only with
medication with little or no medication management, follow-up, or
concern for side effects, some of which are debilitating," the
complaint reads.

Brought against ADOC, ADOC Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and ADOC
associate commissioner of health services Ruth Naglich, part of
the suit hinges on the involvement of MHM Correctional Services,
which is contracted by ADOC to provide mental health care in ADOC
facilities.

According to the complaint, the contract between MHM and ADOC
provides for a part-time psychologist at Donaldson, Bullock,
Limestone and Holman and a full-time psychologist at Tutwiler.  No
psychologist is provided for the remaining 10 facilities.

Anna Walker-Davis, an MHM Correctional Services, testified that an
Easterling -- a prison with 195 inmates on its mental health
caseload -- had 23 patients with past-due labs.  Forty treatment
plans were outdated or requiring review. Gaps in record keeping
were not uncommon.

Inmates seek order to force mental health care improvements
"Corrective action is imperative by senior management,"
Ms. Walker-Davis wrote in an email to higher-ups at MHM.

But Ms. Walker-Davis could not specify whether the gaps should be
attributed to a lack of keeping accurate records, or a failure to
provide care.

The plaintiffs' attorneys point to "systemic underfunding" of
medical care in the facilities as one of the root problems. In
part, the defense argues that such underfunding makes Dunn not
liable for many of the woes the plaintiffs argue plague ADOC's
health care.

John Smith, an attorney for the defendants, contended that the
some of the changes the plaintiffs want made to the prison system
go beyond his scope of authority.

"If (Dunn) does not in his official capacity have the ability to
affect these changes, I don't see how he can be found deliberately
indifferent," Mr. Smith said.

The trial is expected to continue for at least two more weeks.


ALERE INC: KSF Commences Investigation Into Abott Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq.,
a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), on
Jan. 6 disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into
Alere Inc. (NYSE: ALR).

In February 1, 2016, Alere announced that it had agreed to be
bought by Abbott Laboratories for about $5.8 billion.  Four weeks
later, Alere disclosed that it would be delaying the filing of its
annual report while it analyzed how it recognized revenue in
Africa and China.  When the report was submitted five months
later, Alere admitted to internal control failures that required
it to restate its 2013-15 financials.

Then, on March 11, 2016, Alere announced that it had received a
grand jury subpoena from the DOJ requiring it to produce documents
relating to its sales practices in Africa, Asia, Latin America and
other Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues.  In November, Alere
lost Medicare reimbursement privileges for its diabetes division
subsidiary for seeking reimbursement for 211 deceased people.
Then, on December 7, 2016, Abbott sued Alere, seeking to terminate
the buyout.

Alere and certain of its executives have also been sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, which charged them with failing
to disclose material information to shareholders, violating
federal securities laws.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Alere's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Alere's shareholders
or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Alere shares and
would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Second Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that a Connecticut
pharmaceutical company has been hit with its second class action
lawsuit in as many months over claims it defrauded stockholders
with shady sales practices and by falsely hyping the growth of its
drug Soliris, a treatment that costs $455,000 a year.

The Boston Retirement System filed the federal lawsuit in
New Haven Dec. 29 on behalf of thousands of investors against
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.  The federal securities class action
is being brought on behalf of anyone who purchased Alexion
securities between Feb. 10, 2014, and Dec. 9, 2016.

The lawsuit -- which claims the company violated federal
securities laws -- is similar to one filed Nov. 17 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Victoriano
Frutos Juarez.  His lawsuit covers alleged Alexion securities
violations during the same period.

The 24-page lawsuit filed claims that Alexion "reported impressive
earnings and growth because of strength in its Soliris franchise."
Alexion develops and commercializes therapeutic products for rare
diseases and its primary product was Soliris, an antibody used for
the treatment of a genetic blood disorder.

The lawsuit repeatedly claims Alexion went out if its way to
mislead investors and the public about the strength of Soliris,
which eventually led to the resignation of the company's two top
executives.

The drugmaker claimed it had "an effective marketing strategy for
the drug and that Alexion could monitor the inventory levels for
Soliris," according to the lawsuit.  "These statements were
materially false and misleading.  In truth, defendants inflated
the company's reported earnings by selling Soliris in violation of
company policies and procedures, and otherwise engaging in illicit
sales tactics for the drug."

This distorted the company's inventory of Soliris, according to
the lawsuit.

The claim also notes that on Nov. 9 -- after the market closed --
the company announced it wouldn't be able to timely file its
financial and operating results for the quarter ending Sept. 30.
That was due to "allegations raised by a former Alexion employee
regarding improper sales practices of Soliris and the related
disclosure and other considerations raised by such practices,"
according to the lawsuit.

The news had a devastating effect on Alexion stock, which fell
$13.54 per share, closing to $113.62 per share on Nov. 11.  The
company continued its downward spiral when it was announced on
Dec. 12 that CEO David Hallal and CFO Vikas Sinha resigned.  That
announcement caused the price of the company's stock to drop 13
percent.

It's alleged throughout the lawsuit that Alexion routinely lied
about Soliris' growth, stability and earnings over the years.  In
total, as of July 27, 2016, Alexion had over 224 million shares of
stock outstanding, owned by hundreds of thousands of investors.

The lawsuit is seeking, among other remedies, compensatory damages
and attorney fees.

Boston Retirement System is being represented by Gerald Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- Hannah Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- and Avi
Josefson of the New York City law firm of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman and David A. Slossberg -- DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
-- of the Milford-based law firm of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg &
Knuff.  Mr. Silk, Ross and Mr. Slossberg were not available for
comment Dec. 30.  Mr. Josefson declined comment.

As of Dec. 30, Alexion had not assigned an attorney to the
lawsuit. No one from the company was available for comment.


AMAZON PROCESSING: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Processing,
LLC. The case is captioned as Keisha Newsom, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amazon
Processing, LLC doing business as Appstar Financial, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03122-JAH-AGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30,
2016). The case is assigned to hon. Judge John A. Houston.

Amazon Processing LLC is a privately held company in San Diego,
California engaged in the data processing industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ANZ BANK: Seeks Dismissal of Singapore Rate Rigging Case in US
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Age, reports that a cabal of
international banks including ANZ Bank and Macquarie have applied
to dismiss a class action against them in the US for the alleged
rigging of the Singapore intra-bank interest rates on the grounds
they are incorporated abroad.

If the application is successful, it could throw doubt on a
separate action brought against Australia's big four banks and
Macquarie for allegedly rigging the bank bill swap rate in New
York.

Both cases have been brought by US investment houses Sonterra
Capital and Frontpoint, the latter of which was the inspiration
for the film The Big Short.

The second case regarding the BBSW also includes big-time US
trader Richard Dennis, commonly referred to as the Prince of the
Pit, as a plaintiff.

In that case, the big four Australian banks and Macquarie have
been named as defendants.  Separately in Australia, the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission is suing National Australia
Bank, ANZ and Westpac for allegedly rigging the bank bill swap
rate.

The banks' lawyers argue the alleged rigging of the SIBOR and the
swap offer rate (SOR) took place outside the US.

"All of the foreign defendants are headquartered in and organised
under the laws of a foreign country -- in Europe, Asia, or
Australia," the banks argue.

"For each of the foreign defendants, their contacts with the
United States and New York (if any) represent a comparatively
small portion of their global business operations," the banks add.

However, lawyers for Frontpoint and Sonterra said the court should
not dismiss the case as requested by the banks.

"The moving defendants ask this court to absolve them of
violations of United States law because they are incorporated
abroad," lawyers for Frontpoint and Sonterra said. "These foreign
banks want the court to leave their domestic co-conspirator banks
responsible to pay the entire bill for the domestic injury they,
together, caused."

Lawyers for Frontpoint and Sonterra cited a case in the US where a
victim of the Castro regime in Cuba was able to sue international
and domestic banks which had blocked access to the country's
assets held in their possession.

In that ruling the court found that "there is no reason to give
advantage to a foreign bank with a branch in New York, over a
domestic bank".

The lawyers for the US hedge funds bringing the action against
ANZ, Macquarie and the other banks noted that all of the
international banks "registered to do business and consented to
jurisdiction in New York".

The international bank "defendants intentionally caused harmful
effects in the United States.  Defendants reaped illicit profits
off the backs of US investors in the SIBOR and SOR-based
derivatives market they manipulated using their US operations."

ANZ and Macquarie declined to comment, but both banks have
previously denied any wrongdoing.

In 2013, ANZ and Macquarie along with 18 other banks were
sanctioned by the Monetary Authority of Singapore after traders
within each of the banks were found to have attempted to
"inappropriately influence financial benchmarks", according to a
media release from the authority at the time.


ARIZONA SUMMIT: Judge Dismisses Consumer Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed fraud claims against Arizona Summit
Law School brought by a former student and employee who alleged
the school misrepresented incoming students' grades and Law School
Admission Test scores.

Judge Neil Wake, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, on Dec. 27 ruled that plaintiff Paula Lorona failed to
provide evidence that the Phoenix law school materially
misrepresented the qualifications of new students when it omitted
from the data it reports publicly the undergraduate grades and
LSAT scores of students admitted through its alternative
admissions program.  The school's Alternative Admission Model
Program for Legal Education (AAMPLE) is a seven-week online law
course that guarantees those who pass a spot at the school
regardless of their grades and LSAT scores.

While Wake dismissed Ms. Lorona's claims of consumer fraud, common
law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, her claims of
retaliatory discharge, violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act and gender discrimination remain.

Ms. Lorona alleged that omitting the grades and LSAT scores of
those who enrolled through AAMPLE in the admissions data reported
to the American Bar Association and in promotional material
amounted to fraud, and that she would not have enrolled had the
school not misrepresented the statistics.

During discovery, the law school provided data on the grades and
LSAT scores of all enrolled students between 2008 and 2014 --
including AAMPLE participants -- which showed virtually no
difference from what the school previously reported.  In many
cases, the school-provided data showed that the median LSAT scores
and undergraduate grades were actually higher when all students
were calculated than the figures officially reported to the ABA.

"The law school produced evidence that when all enrolled students,
including those from the alternative program, are included in a
report of admission statistics, the report is not materially
different from what the law school reported to the American Bar
Association," Judge Wake wrote.

Ms. Lorona objected to the use of the school-provided numbers,
however, calling them hearsay and lacking in authentication.  Her
attorney, Sean Woods of the Phoenix firm Mills + Woods, declined
to comment on Dec. 29.

Ms. Lorona, a former assistant director of financial aid and a
2014 Arizona Summit graduate, sued the school in June 2015
claiming fraud, retaliatory discharge and violation of the Higher
Education Act's program integrity regulations.  She claimed she
was ordered to submit false state tax documents on behalf of the
school and was fired after she refused.  Ms. Lorona claimed she
raised concerns with top administrators over what she believed was
false advertising and the inability of many AAMPLE participants to
succeed in school and on the bar.  Ms. Lorona also claimed that
Arizona Summit and the two other for-profit law schools owned by
Infilaw Corp. -- Florida Coastal School of Law and Charlotte
School of Law -- pay poorly performing students $5,000 to delay
taking the bar exam in an effort to prop up declining bar-passage
rates.  School officials later defended the program as a way to
help students afford to take additional time to study for the all-
important exam.


ARMANDO MONTELONGO: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
InTouch reports that Flip or Flop's Tarek El Moussa and Christina
El Moussa aren't the only house-flipping reality TV stars making
headlines.  In Touch has learned another wealthy TV real estate
personality with a similar business model -- former A&E Flip This
House star

Armando Montelongo -- is being sued in Texas by nearly 200
plaintiffs who allege his company's $1,500 seminars were simply
ruses to sell more classes that cost as much as $54,000.

In the latest issue of In Touch, Mr. Armando speaks out telling
the mag exclusively, "We've always been very transparent about our
business model.  We've even showed it on Undercover Boss."

Those suing Armando feel "they've been cheated," attorney
Christopher Wimmer, who's spearheading the class-action lawsuit
against Armando and his company, reveals.  Mr. Wimmer alleges that
the company has "a plan to defraud all of these individuals
because they're not offering genuine education services -- just an
opportunity to buy more products."  In the docs, obtained by In
Touch exclusively, the class-action lawsuit claims
Mr. Armando's company's "scheme has destroyed livelihoods, wrecked
marriages, driven students into clinical depression and even
resulted in suicide."

In March, Armando's company issued a statement calling those suing
him a small group of people who simply "decided that continuous
hard work is not for them."  To those who feel his system doesn't
work in the current financial and real estate climate, Mr.
Armando, whose new show, Flipping Nightmares, debuts on streaming
platforms in February, says, "You would have a tough time telling
that to my students who are actually doing deals right now."

In an unusual twist, lawyers are using federal RICO laws, which
are often used in organized crime cases, to go after
Mr. Armando's company for racketeering, among other things.
"These plaintiffs are reaching," says Mr. Armando, who also
asserts that "a number of these individuals that I've taught how
to be successful have opened up a competitive seminar company or a
competitive educational online company and -- are colluding to
come together to try to bring down No. 1."


ASHLEY MADISON: Parent Seeks to Arbitrate Data Breach Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that
AshleyMadison.com's parent company is hoping to knock out more
than 20 class actions filed over its 2015 data breach by invoking
online arbitration agreements the plaintiffs signed when they
subscribed to its matchmaking services.

The move to arbitrate comes after Avid Life Media Inc., which has
been rebranded as Ruby Corp., agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle
claims by the Federal Trade Commission and several state attorneys
general over the breach, which compromised financial and personal
information of nearly 37 million subscribers.

In a Nov. 15 motion to dismiss, Avid attorney Richard Cassetta, a
partner at Bryan Cave in St. Louis, wrote that the plaintiffs
agreed to arbitrate their disputes when they set up an account on
AshleyMadison.com.  Plaintiffs attorney Douglas Dowd countered
that Avid's "shoddy record-keeping practices" made it difficult to
know whether the plaintiffs signed such agreements or were aware
that they contained an arbitration clause.  Lawyers are due in
court on Jan. 6 to schedule oral arguments on the matter.

Neither Messrs. Cassetta nor Dowd, president at Dowd & Dowd in St.
Louis, responded to requests for comment.

AshleyMadison.com's motion delves into the world of online
contractual agreements, whose enforceability has led to an array
of court rulings attempting to decipher terms like "clickwrap" and
"browsewrap," said Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law
Institute and a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.

"We're seeing a number of judges saying, 'I don't know what to
make of this,'" he said. Judges who have turned to basic
arbitration principles, rather than the terminology of online
contracts, have come out with clearer guidelines, he said.  "If a
site can show 'Here's the affirmative manifestation of assent, and
a knowing action,' they do pretty well in court."

In the litigation against AshleyMadison.com, a consolidated class
action filed on June 24 alleges that Toronto-based Avid and its
former CEO, Noel Biderman, generated revenues through a
racketeering conspiracy of "valueless services" in violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.  Those
services included the use of fake female profiles to convince
users to pay for credits and a $19 fee designed to delete their
personal information from the site -- even though it didn't.
Plaintiffs also brought negligence and other common law claims and
alleged violations of various state consumer and data breach
statutes.

In moving to dismiss the claims, Avid argued that in 2011 it added
an arbitration clause and class action waiver in its terms and
conditions, which plaintiffs agreed to when they signed up. Of the
18 named plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint, 15 opened
accounts or agreed to the terms and conditions after Avid added
the clause, according to Avid's motion.  The other three, who
opened accounts before 2011, were bound by changes in the site's
terms and conditions since they continued to use the site, Mr.
Cassetta wrote.

In a Nov. 18 opposition, Mr. Dowd insisted that the arbitration
provision was "buried after pages of legalese."

"Indeed, as comedian John Oliver astutely quipped, 'If Apple put
the entire text of Mein Kampf in their use agreement, you'd still
click agree," Mr. Dowd wrote, quoting from a 2015 ruling in
Berkson v. Gogo that rejected arbitration provisions in the online
Wi-Fi connection agreements the website offered to airline
passengers.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: NL Court Certifies Disgruntled Players' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Jones at World Casino News reports that the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation and others could be facing a lawsuit brought by two
disgruntled players after a class action proposal was certified by
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Justice Alphonsus
Faour.

The pair claim "deception and misrepresentation in the offering of
these games to the public," and based on an affidavit submitted by
a problem gambling researcher from the University of Waterloo, the
justice determined there was 'some evidence' of such and, "The
plaintiffs have persuaded me that their conceptualization of this
case is workable, and can be considered on the merits of the case
as framed."

In order to frame their case, counsel for the plaintiffs who are
identified in local media as Douglas Babstock of Mount Pearl, and
Fred Small of Gander, relied on "the Statute of Anne, 1710"
otherwise known as the "Gaming Act, 1710". The 306 year old law
allows gambling losers to sue for treble damages of lost money.

Cbc.ca reports that Faour wrote in his decision that: "The
defendant rightly points out that the act may not be in force in
the province at this time in history. The plaintiffs will have to
make the argument for its applicability at trial,"

The case as of October 2014 (201201G2257; 2014 NLTD(G) 114) is
indexed as Babstock et al. v. Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc., the
full title includes as many as seven third parties, to wit:
Douglas Babstock and Fred Small (plaintiff) v. Atlantic Lottery
Corporation Inc./Soci‚t‚ de loteries de l'Atlantique (defendant)
and VLC, Inc. (first third party), IGT-Canada Inc. (second third
party), International Game Technology (third third party), Spielo
International Canada ULC (fourth third party), GTECH Corporation
(fifth third party), Tech Link International Entertainment Limited
(sixth third party) and HI-TECH Gaming.com Ltd. (seventh third
party)

According to patientinjurylaw.ca, the class action is on behalf of
all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who have gambled on
video lottery terminals. The site goes on to state that: "Video
lottery terminals, or VLTs, are a form of continuous electronic
gambling. They differ from lotteries in that they are
electronically programmed to create cognitive distortions of the
perception of winning. These cognitive distortions are intended to
keep the consumer engaged and losing money. The class action
claims that VLTs are inherently deceptive, inherently addictive,
and inherently dangerous when used as intended.

Plaintiffs believe that Atlantic Lotto knows or ought to know that
VLTs are inherently deceptive, inherently addictive, and
inherently dangerous when used as intended."

In the U.S. the Nevada Gaming Commission dealt with a possibly
similar issue in 1988/1989 wherein 3-reel slots had been
programmed to show high paying symbols on the pay line in non-
winning combinations. This 'made people think' they might win on
the next pull, or that the machine was 'getting hot'. In one case
it was accomplished by placing 12 blanks on a reel above the high
paying symbol and 7 blanks below. The slot software used 32 stops
on reels with 22 physical symbols. The practice was ruled unfair
and the 'clustering' technique has been banned in Las Vegas and
the rest of Nevada since that time.

It is currently unclear what sort of evidence the plaintiffs
intend to introduce that would buoy their claim that the VLT's are
programmed to create cognitive distortions and the 'perception of
winning'. It would seem an argument of bells and whistles, low
paying bonus rounds, or low variance machines that return a lot of
small wins over time with rare jackpots would fall short.

If plaintiffs are able to convince the court at trial that the
more than 300 year old law should be in force, the trial could go
forward. The first stage of certification was argued in June of
2014 with plaintiffs winning on the question of whether a cause of
action is disclosed. The judge in that case released his decision
in October 2014.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Gambler Pleased with Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM Local News Now reports that a man from central Newfoundland
is happy to see the Supreme Court certify a class action against
Atlantic Lottery Corporation. The suit claims that ALC's video
lottery terminals deceive people into thinking they can win. Shaun
Bown of Benton says he lost close to $100,000 dollars through his
VLT addiction and would like to see them banned. He says he will
never forget his worst day as a compulsive gambler.

On that day he lost an entire income tax refund cheque, worth
$3,000, and resolved to kill himself by pulling in front of a
transport truck. He says it's just by chance that he didn't see
one while driving home from Gander that night.

Atlantic Lottery says the claim in the class action suit is simply
not true, but Bown believes the machines are bad for society and
they should be removed.

He says line games give people the illusion they can win, but in
the end all their money is gone, and they have to lie, cheat and
steal to get more money to pump into the machines.

It is estimated that 30,000 people play VLT line games in this
province.


AUTOZONE INC: Oregon Appeals Court Affirms Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Joel DeVore of the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's certification of the classes but reversed and
remanded the imposition of statutory penalties as to the off-the-
clock claims in the case captioned, Michael MIGIS, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada
corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent, Case No.
A150540 (Or. App.).

Plaintiff Migis filed a class action against his former employer,
defendant AutoZone, Inc., on behalf of himself and current and
former employees of defendant. He alleged several wage-violation
claims, seeking damages and statutory penalties. Plaintiff's wage-
violation claims are (1) that current and former employees were
not paid for the time they worked off the clock (the off-the-clock
claims), and (2) that defendant failed to timely provide final
wages upon termination of employment (the final-wages claim).
Before trial, plaintiff moved to certify three classes, which the
trial court granted, determining that the classes met all of the
requirements of ORCP 32.

The claims proceeded to trial in January 2010. The parties
disputed whether the jury was required to find that defendant
willfully violated the wage and hour laws as to the off-the-clock
claims in order to impose civil penalties under ORS 652.140, ORS
652.150, and ORS 653.055. The trial court sided with plaintiff,
deciding that a finding of willfulness applied only to the final-
wages claim and reserved the imposition of civil penalties as to
the off-the-clock claims as a matter to be determined by the
court. The jury returned a verdict against defendant as to the
off-the-clock claims and the final-wages claim, awarding $110,030
in damages. In April 2010, the court held a bench trial in which
it determined civil penalties in the amount of $2,439,266.

In September 2011, defendant filed two motions: the first to
reduce the civil penalties, arguing that the penalties exceeded
what was permissible under federal due process, and the second, an
alternative ORCP 64 motion for a new trial. The court denied those
motions on substantive and procedural grounds. In June 2012,
plaintiff filed a supplemental fee petition under ORCP 68. After
discovery and a hearing, the trial court awarded attorney fees.
The court determined that plaintiff was entitled under ORS 652.200
and ORS 653.055 to more than $2.2 million in fees. The trial court
found, in part, that, because of the "risks involved" and the
"excellent results" obtained by plaintiff's counsel, a "multiplier
enhancement" to double the lodestar fee was appropriate, resulting
in a fee award of more than $4.4 million.

After a jury trial and bench trial, defendant appeals a general
judgment that awarded plaintiff and other class members $110,030
in damages, $2,439,266 in statutory penalties, and $1,144,058 in
prejudgment interest on the damages and statutory penalties.
Defendant also appeals a supplemental judgment that, in addition
to other things, awarded $4,249,665.49 in attorney fees to
plaintiff.

Defendant raises nine assignments of error. In its first
assignment, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it
certified the classes and denied defendant's two motions to
decertify the classes. In defendant's third and fourth assignments
of error, defendant challenges civil penalties that the trial
court imposed under ORS 652.150 and ORS 653.055. Defendant's
second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth assignments of error also
concern the civil penalties imposed. Defendant's second assignment
asserts that the trial court was not authorized to impose $862,894
in civil penalties, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees after
tolling the statutory limitations period for civil penalties under
ORCP 32 N by way of another action filed against defendant.

In his Order dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bSU56z from Leagle.com, Judge DeVore concluded that
(1) defendant's challenge to class certification as to the off-
the-clock claims on the merits and its certification challenge to
the final-wages claims are rejected because its arguments on
appeal were not preserved; (2) a finding of willfulness was
required for the court to impose civil penalties for the off-the-
clock claims; (3) Defendant's second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and
ninth assignments of error fails to comply with ORAP 5.45 and that
the trial court's denials of the motions on procedural grounds
were not made in error.

Michael Migis is represented by Roy Pulvers, Esq. --
roy.pulvers@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT

Autozone, Inc. is represented by A E Bud Bailey, Esq. -- and
J. Dana Pinney, Esq. -- jdpinney@wagelawyer.com --
danabernstein@atblaw.net -- BAILEY, PINNEY & ASSOCIATES, LLC


BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss Appeals From W.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ann Harrell, Eddie Harrell, Robert Lessman and William
Weiss filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled William Weiss, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2-15-cv-00062, in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as William Weiss, et al. v. Bank
of America Corp., et al., Case No. 16-4386, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

District Judge Cathy Bisoon of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment
in favor of the defendants in the district court case captioned,
WILLIAM WEISS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-00062 (W.D. Pa.).

In the civil action, Plaintiffs assert class claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. Sections 1961-68, as well as state law claims of unjust
enrichment. The claims are based on allegations that Bank of
America Corporation, which owns Bank of America, N.A. (BANA),
referred borrowers to private mortgage insurance providers in
exchange for kickbacks, funneled through Defendant Bank of America
Reinsurance Corporation.

Previously, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on grounds, inter alia, that
the RICO claims are barred by the four-year statute of
limitations.  Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' RICO claims arose
in 2006 and 2007, at the time of closing. Plaintiffs, in response,
contended that their 2012 receipt of notice from counsel triggered
the statute of limitations.

By Memorandum Order dated December 22, 2015, the Court denied
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Court rejected Defendants'
argument that, based on the mortgage documents and Plaintiffs'
participation in their closings, Plaintiffs' claims accrued in
2006 and 2007.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that
Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/xh0jUR from Leagle.com, Judge Bisoon found that
summary judgment is appropriate regarding Plaintiffs' RICO claims
because the injuries allegedly caused by subsequent account
statements, and the account statements themselves, were not "new
and separate," as contemplated by either the separate-accrual rule
or its underlying principles.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction regarding
the state law claims.

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM WEISS, ROBERT LESSMAN, ANN HARRELL
and EDDIE HARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          Donna S. Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  jmaro@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. O'Brien, Esq.
          STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN & ASSOCIATES
          650 Ridge Road, Suite 400
          Pittsburgh, PA 15205
          Telephone: (412) 788-7560
          Facsimile: (412) 788-7563
          E-mail: sjobrien@sobrienlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA CORP., BANK OF AMERICA NA and
BANK OF AMERICA REINSURANCE CORP. are represented by:

          Mary J. Hackett, Esq.
          Karla Johnson, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3250
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: mhackett@reedsmith.com
                  kljohnson@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Keith E. Levenberg, Esq.
          David L. Permut, Esq.
          Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 East
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4248
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: klevenberg@goodwinprocter.com
                  dpermut@goodwinprocter.com
                  msheldon@goodwinprocter.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorneys' Class Action Fee Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a federal judge
whacked $10 million from the fee request of a class-action firm
that negotiated a $335 million settlement of mortgage-backed
securities claims against Bank of America, saying it was based on
the work of short-term "associates" who appeared to function as
contract attorneys.

It wasn't all bad news for the partners at Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine: In his Dec. 28 order, U.S. District Judge William Pauley
awarded $41.3 million in fees and $1.4 million in expenses for
their work on the case, or about 12% of the sum they negotiated
for their clients.

But the fee order provides evidence at least some judges are
starting to figure out the economics of the class-action business.
Judge Pauley blocked Barrack, Rodos partners from engaging in the
routine practice of earning a windfall from the markup of work
performed by low-paid attorneys.

Barrack's records showed that motion practice and mediation, the
traditional work of partner-level attorneys, represented only
about 5% of the billable hours.  Indeed, 11 partners at the firm
billed 88% of the hours in that area, at rates of $455 to $740 an
hour.  Yet 70% of the total hours the firm sought to charge its
clients were billed by 26 Barrack associates, 16 of whom were
"temporary associates" Barrack hired in 2013 and 2014 to work
exclusively on the BoA case and who disappeared from the payroll
before it was settled.

Those new hires represented 40% of the billable hours and $10.8
million in fees at $362.50 an hour -- well above the prevailing
rate for contract attorneys of less than $50 an hour.  The judge
declined to criticize Barrack for running a "lean, partner-heavy
firm."

"This Court simply concludes that a reduction in the requested fee
is warranted to avoid a windfall to Barrack for charging more than
$350 per hour for associates who are contract attorneys in all but
name, while simultaneously overstaffing the substantive legal work
with high-priced partners," he wrote.

Leverage -- the practice of billing out low-paid associates at
$350 an hour or more -- is under severe pressure at corporate law
firms but plaintiff lawyers in class actions still get away with
it, often paying outside agencies to supply roomfuls of contract
attorneys to scan the millions of documents generated in a typical
class action even though paralegals or computer software could do
the work just as well.  That markup is a valuable source of
profits as well as a tool for cohesion among rival plaintiff
firms: By allocating "contract hours" among themselves in cases
where multiple firms are involved, they can tamp down
disagreements that might lead to more vigorous price competition.

The 12% contingency fee rate falls in the middle of rates judges
in federal courts have been approving in recent years, and
reflects a "discount" for so-called "mega funds" over $100 million
where the assumption is lawyers gained from the economies of scale
from attacking a rich target like BoA.  The case took almost six
years to resolve and survived two motions to dismiss including one
where all the defendants but BoA were released.  The plaintiffs
made securities-fraud claims relating to BoA's alleged failure to
disclose the risks associated with agreements to buy back
mortgage-backed securities and problems associated with the MERS
national mortgage registry system.  BoA denied the allegations but
agreed to class certification and mediation.

This fee order was first reported by the Legal Intelligencer.


BAXTER INT'L: Robins Kaplan Named Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
National trial firm Robins Kaplan LLP(R) on Jan. 4 disclosed that
it has been appointed co-lead counsel in a class action antitrust
lawsuit against the three dominant suppliers of IV saline
solution, a vital medical supply used in hospitals nationwide.

Robins Kaplan filed the first complaint in the country in November
2016 alleging that defendants Baxter International, Baxter
Healthcare, and Hospira -- which together control approximately 90
percent of the market -- orchestrated an artificial rise in prices
under the pretext of a supply shortage.

"The complaint alleges that the defendants created a public health
crisis -- one that was avoidable and that unnecessarily drove up
the cost of healthcare for hospitals and vulnerable patients,"
said Hollis Salzman -- HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com -- co-chair of
Robins Kaplan's Antitrust and Trade Regulation group.  "We look
forward to pursuing this action, obtaining redress for hospitals
and others that have paid a higher price resulting from the
defendants' alleged collusion."

According to the allegations in the complaint, beginning in 2013
the defendants undertook extensive efforts to create a supply
shortage that would justify price increases, including allocating
the volume of product that each would place on the market.  In
addition, as the purported shortage extended over time, it became
the subject of Congressional scrutiny.  Approximately one year
ago, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators urged the Federal Trade
Commission to investigate possible collusion among saline
suppliers, which it noted "are reported to have increased their
prices by 200-300 percent."  The letter continued: "This equates
to increased annual costs to individual hospitals in the range of
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars."

As court-appointed co-lead counsel, Robins Kaplan represents a
proposed class of direct purchasers, including hospitals, that
purchased IV saline solution after January 1, 2013.  Providers of
IV saline solution generate in excess of $1.2 billion in annual
revenue.

Hollis Salzman, as well as Robins Kaplan of counsel Eamon O'Kelly
and associate Meegan Hollywood, are representing the plaintiffs.

The case is Washington County Health Care Authority, Inc. et al.
vs. Baxter International Inc., et al.  It is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before
the Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr.

                   About Robins Kaplan LLP(R)

Robins Kaplan is among the nation's premier trial law firms, with
more than 220 lawyers located in Boston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis;
Naples, Fla; New York; and Silicon Valley.  The firm litigates,
mediates, and arbitrates high-stakes, complex disputes, repeatedly
earning national recognition.  Firm clients include -- as both
plaintiffs and defendants -- numerous Fortune 500 corporations,
emerging-markets companies, entrepreneurs, and individuals.


BRISTOL HARBOUR: Settles Workers' Labor Class Action for $412,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood, writing for Daily Messenger, reports that about
160 workers in a class-action lawsuit alleging Bristol Harbour
Resort violated labor laws will share in funds agreed to in a
settlement amount totaling $412,500.

"The parties reached an amicable resolution," said attorney Justin
Cordello, who represented the workers.  Eric Dolan with Trevett
Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C. represented the resort most recently
in the case.

The decision signed by state Supreme Court Justice Matthew A.
Rosenbaum outlines the settlement, which is subject to final court
approval expected this March.

The lawsuit claimed the resort in South Bristol for six years
pocketed tips that should have gone to its banquet service staff,
which includes bussers, wait staff and bartenders who worked at
the resort between May 2008 and May 2014.  The suit was filed on
behalf of former Bristol Harbour employee Allison Plante and all
other employees in a similar situation.

According to the negotiated agreement, each member of the class
action will receive a distribution from the settlement fund.  The
formula will determine what each individual member should receive
based on their length of employment and other factors.  The amount
distributed will come from a fund balance after fees are paid.  A
settlement claim administrator will be paid about $16,250.
Attorneys' fees will be no more than $165,000 and litigation costs
no more than $5,000.

Another local resort remains at the center of a lawsuit alleging
violations of state and federal labor laws.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court was brought on behalf of
Martin Hinckley Jr., a former employee of The Inn on the Lake in
Canandaigua.  The complaint seeks to recover damages for Hinckley
and others in his situation through a class action.

Mr. Hinckley worked at the resort and conference center from about
July 2013 until July 2015 as a banquet service worker at events
such as weddings, parties, conferences, corporate functions and
other special events.  The original complaint alleged unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, improperly withheld tips, unpaid
spread of hours premium, failing to maintain uniforms, providing
employees with defective annual notices, and failing to provide
employees with statements with every payment of wages.

Mr. Cordello represents the workers.

Defendants are The Inn on the Lake parent organizations, Seagate
Hospitality Group LLC and Canandaigua Hotel Corp., and Thomas A.
Blank, chief executive officer of Canandaigua Hotel Corp. Attorney
Stephen Jones with Nixon Peabody LLP represent the defendants.

In recent developments, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Siragusa
ruled that most of the tipped workers' labor law claims should not
be dismissed.  The case is now going forward as a class action,
minus a few allegations including the complaint regarding unpaid
overtime.

Mr. Jones said the case is entering the discovery phase.  That
will give Mr. Jones and his team the chance to sit down and ask
the plaintiff questions under oath, among other activities during
a period when both sides are able to collect and exchange
information.

Mr. Jones said he will continue to "to vigorously defend the case"
and "move to dismiss the entire case."


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Nayab" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Freshta Y Nayab, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital One
Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03111-CAB-NLS (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo.

Capital One Bank offers financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses, and commercial clients in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asil A Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348 4938
          Facsimile: (858) 348 4939
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Waller, Latasha Waller, Dennis Marable, Larry Marable,
Quincy Moon, Jonathan Stovall, and Dekeda Townes, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capstone
Logistics, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00064-JLK (W.D. Va., December 27,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Capstone Logistics, LLC operates a distribution center warehouse
for Dollar General Stores at 3207 Philpott Rd., South Boston,
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (877) 561-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
              jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CARL'S JR: Workers Urged to Testify at Confirmation Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Puzzanghera, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
almost two dozen Senate Democrats are calling for fast-food
workers to testify at the confirmation hearing for President-elect
Donald Trump's Labor secretary pick, Andy Puzder, who is the chief
executive of the parent company of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's
burger chains.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Patty Murray of
Washington and 21 other Democrats wrote to the chairman of the
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Jan. 5 saying
they were concerned that Labor Department investigations of CKE
Restaurant Inc. outlets "have turned up violations of basic
protections of workers' rights in more than half of their
inspections."

The Carpinteria-based chain, which has more than 3,300 locations
in 42 U.S. states and 28 countries, is facing "several potential
class-action lawsuits" by employees regarding wage and other
disputes, the lawmakers said.

"It is essential that the committee hear from these employees and
other Americans who have had first-hand experience with Mr. Puzder
or the businesses he has led," the senators wrote to committee
chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

An analysis in September by Bloomberg BNA found that about 60% of
Labor Department investigations of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's
restaurants since 2009 turned up at least one violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which covers minimum wage, overtime and
other regulations.

Still, that was one of the best performances by leading fast-food
outlets.

"Mr. Puzder's tenure at CKE and his company's treatment of
thousands of working families 'bear directly' on his
qualifications and suitability to serve as secretary of Labor,"
the senators wrote.  They added that if confirmed, Mr. Puzder
"would be responsible for overseeing the enforcement of many of
the labor laws his company has repeatedly violated."

In a letter released on Jan. 6, Mr. Alexander wrote back to the
senators saying he would not change committee precedent used for
nominees of presidents Obama, George W. Bush and others.  At those
confirmation hearings, the nominee has been the only witness after
sometimes being introduced by home-state senators.

"We should not change the rules of the confirmation process in the
middle of a transition," Alexander said. "That would be a
disservice to the nominees and would serve as a deterrent to
attracting qualified people to put forth their names for
consideration."

Mr. Puzder's confirmation hearing tentatively is scheduled for
Jan. 17.

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Mr. Puzder has criticized new federal rules expanding overtime
pay, which have been blocked by a federal judge, and opposes the
push for a $15-an-hour minimum wage that many Democrats support.

In selecting Mr. Puzder last month, Trump said the fast-food
executive "will fight to make American workers safer and more
prosperous by enforcing fair occupational safety standards and
ensuring workers receive the benefits they deserve, and he will
save small businesses from the crushing burdens of unnecessary
regulations that are stunting job growth and suppressing wages."


CELADON GROUP: Wins Partial Judgment in "Blakley" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry J. McKinney of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Celadon Group's
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint in the case captioned,
WILLIAM BLAKLEY on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
HELEN BLAKLEY on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
and KIMBERLY SMITH on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CELADON GROUP, INC., CELADON TRUCKING
SERVICES, INC., QUALITY COMPANIES, LLC, QUALITY EQUIPMENT LEASING,
LLC, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-00351-LJM-TAB
(S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs William Blakley, Helen Blakely and Kimberly Smith each
entered into a written Contractor Operating Agreement with
Defendants Celadon Group, Inc., Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.,
Quality Companies, Inc., and Quality Equipment Leasing, Inc. to
work as commercial truck drivers. Under the terms of Agreement,
Plaintiffs agreed "that their compensation for services may be
withheld by Celadon for payment of, and Celadon may set off
against their compensation for" various charges and expenses that
may be incurred during the duration of the Agreement, including
"advances and other extensions of credit by Celadon to
Plaintiffs." Plaintiffs were also required to maintain an escrow
account under the Agreement and authorized Celadon, in its
discretion, "to apply all or any portion of Plaintiffs' Escrow
Account to the payment of any charges or indebtedness" incurred
during the term of the Agreement. The amounts remaining in the
Plaintiffs' escrow accounts upon termination of the Agreement were
returned to Plaintiffs.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that advances Celadon made to
Plaintiffs constitute loans in violation of the Indiana Small
Loans Act and Indiana Consumer Loan Act because Celadon deducted
the advances and service fees from Plaintiffs' paychecks and
secured repayment of the advances with the ability to debit
Plaintiffs' escrow accounts. Plaintiffs further assert that
Celadon's deductions for items, such as "lease payments, fuel
purchases, insurance purchases, and payroll advances," constitute
wage assignments that violate the Indiana Wage Assignment Act by
including transaction fees in excess of the permissible 8% rate
and by securing agreements for assignments exceeding 30 days.

In Counts IV and V of their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the
advances provided by Celadon constitute loans in violation of the
Indiana Small Loans Act and Indiana Consumer Loan Act,
respectively. Plaintiffs allege that Celadon secured wage
assignments through the Agreement that violate the Indiana Wage
Assignment Act in Count VI of their Complaint.

Celadon moved for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In its Motion, Celadon
seeks to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI of Plaintiffs' First Amended
Individual, Collective, and Class Action Civil Complaint.

Celadon asserts that (1) certain payments made by Celadon to
Plaintiffs are not subject to the Indiana Consumer Loans Act, and
the Indiana Small Loans Act, largely because the payments are
advances, rather than "loans"; and (2) Celadon cannot be subject
to the Indiana Wage Assignment Act if it is considered the
Plaintiffs' employer, as Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint.

In his Order dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/5Pssfk from Leagle.com, Judge McKinney concluded
that (1) Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged facts to support
finding Celadon's payments meet the statutory definition of a
"loan"; (2) the Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to
determine that any wage assignments made by Celadon were invalid
because Plaintiffs failed to address the fixed and definite nature
of the wages or salary earned.

Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their complaint.

William Blakley, et al. are represented by Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
-- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Matthew D. Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- and -- Richard S. Swartz, Esq. --
rswartz@swartz=legal.com -- SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC

Celadon Group, Inc., et al. are represented by Adam Eakman, Esq.
-- aeakman@scopelitis.com -- Braden Kenneth Core, Esq. --
bcore@scopelitis.com -- Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. --
ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- and -- Gregory M. Feary, Esq. --
gfeary@scopelitis.com -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC


CEPHALON INC: April 13 Provigil Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
If You Paid for Provigil(R) or Generic Versions of Provigil(R)
(Modafinil)

You Could Get Money from a State Attorney General Settlement

A proposed Settlement has been reached in a lawsuit regarding the
price that individuals in 48 states and the District of Columbia
paid for Provigil(R) and generic versions of Provigil(R).  The
lawsuit asserts that Defendants Cephalon, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (all collectively, "Defendants")
violated antitrust laws relating to the sale of the prescription
pharmaceutical Provigil(R).  All Defendants have denied any
wrongdoing.  Provigil (modafinil) is used to treat excessive
sleepiness caused by sleep apnea, narcolepsy, or shift work sleep
disorder.

If you purchased Provigil(R) and/or modafinil between June 24,
2006 and March 31, 2012, you may be entitled to a payment from the
Settlement Fund.  If you purchased Provigil(R) and/or modafinil
through July 28, 2016, your rights will be affected, whether you
act or don't act.

No question is raised about the safety or effectiveness of
Provigil(R) or modafinil.

Who is eligible to make a claim?

You are eligible to make a claim if you fit the definition below:

   -- Purchased and/or paid for Provigil(R) or generic versions of
Provigil(R) (modafinil), including co-pays and co-insurance,

   -- Purchased between June 24, 2006 and March 31, 2012,

   -- In Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
Wyoming and the District of Columbia,

   -- For consumption by yourself or a family member.

   -- Residents of Louisiana and California are not included.

Specifically, you purchased and/or paid for Provigil(R) or generic
versions of Provigil(R) if you were:

(a)  An uninsured consumer who paid all of the purchase price of
the prescription; or

(b)  An insured consumer who made a co-payment or other partial
out-of-pocket payment, or paid the entire cost because you had not
met a deductible amount under your health plan.

What do the settlements provide?

The Defendants will pay a total of $35 million into a Settlement
Fund to settle all claims in the lawsuit brought on behalf of
consumers.

The Settlement Fund will be distributed pro rata to consumers who
file a valid Claim Form.  The amount of money you are eligible to
receive will depend on how much you (and other consumers) paid for
Provigil(R) or modafinil.

How do I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form by April 13, 2017 to be eligible for
a payment.  The Claim Form, and instructions on how to submit it,
are available at www.StateAGProvigilSettlement.com or by calling
1-877-236-1413.

What are my other rights?

If you purchased Provigil(R) and/or modafinil through July 28,
2016, and you do nothing, your rights will be affected.  If you do
not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude
yourself.  The deadline to exclude yourself is April 14, 2017.  If
you do not exclude yourself, you will not be able to sue the
Defendants for any claim relating to the lawsuit.  If you stay in
the Settlements, you may file an objection to the Settlements by
April 14, 2017.  The Court will hold a hearing on July 25, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation and any other issues the Court thinks
are necessary.  You can appear at the hearing, but you don't have
to.  You can hire an attorney, at your own expense, to appear or
speak for you at the hearing.

For more information and/or to obtain a claim form:
Visit www.StateAGProvigilSettlement.com or call 1-877-236-1413.


CHEMTALL INC: Remaining Settlement Money Donated to Universities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Parker, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that a
Marshall County judge helped turn a multi-million-dollar court
settlement into an educational fund to benefit two Mountain State
universities.

When Circuit Judge David Hummel found out that more than $6
million remained in a court settlement account from a class-action
lawsuit in Marshall County Circuit Court, court staff decided to
make use of the money to help programs at Marshall University and
West Virginia University.

Judge Hummel, along with Wheeling attorney Dean Hartley, claims
administrator Ted Gompers and Charleston attorney E. William
Harvit recently traveled to both WVU and Marshall to present each
school with a check for almost $3.1 million.

Judge Hummel ordered the funds to be split equally between the WVU
Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute and the Robert C.
Byrd Center for Rural Health at Marshall University in November.

According to Judge Hummel, the order was a result of a class-
action lawsuit against Chemtall Inc., which obtained medical
monitoring for coal and wastewater treatment workers who had been
exposed to a neurotoxin in their line of work.

He added medical monitoring in the case ruling entitled affected
West Virginia and Pennsylvania employees of Chemtall and other
chemical providers to free doctor's examinations to determine if
their exposure resulted in any adverse effects.

"I made certain the money stayed in the state of West Virginia,
but certainly the neuroscience research will help West Virginia
and people outside of the state," Judge Hummel said.  "The case
itself was about health issues and the neuroscience dovetailed
right into that. It just seemed like a logical place for it to go.
At Marshall, they're doing amazing things for rural West
Virginians with very little money."

At Marshall University, funds will be used to improve initiatives
at the Robert C. Byrd Center for Rural Health, which focuses on
isolation as a health care barrier in remote areas.

At WVU, the donation will support research into Alzheimer's
disease, stroke, addiction and other neuroscience issues.

George Spirou, Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute
director at WVU, said the institution recently merged with WVU and
the donation will help secure more faculty and add to its 55 labs.

"I anticipate the funds will be used to support the expansion of
research and to add new faculty but also to target some of our
existing research areas," Mr. Spirou said.  "Addiction and stroke
stick out as key health issues in the state."


CHICAGO, IL: Speed-Camera Ticket Notices Sent to Motorists
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Brown, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that some 1.2
million motorists have been sent notices from the city of Chicago
offering an "additional opportunity" to contest red-light and
speed-camera tickets that some of them paid as long as seven years
ago.

What the notices don't explain is that it's actually the city that
is trying to give itself the "additional opportunity" -- to
reinforce its claim to millions of dollars in fines and penalties
that it is in danger of having to repay those vehicle owners.

The notices are part of a legal strategy by the Emanuel
administration to lessen the potential impact of a pending class-
action lawsuit brought on behalf of motorists ticketed under the
red-light and speed-camera programs.

A Cook County judge has ruled the city denied due process to
recipients of camera tickets, in part by failing to send them a
second notice of their violations before assessing additional
penalties.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs contend the city could be
forced to refund $200 million.

But there's no mention of any of that in the "Dear Camera
Violation Ticket Recipient" letter that went out under the names
of city Comptroller Erin Keane and Transportation Commissioner
Rebekah Scheinfeld.  The notices cover more than 1.9 million
tickets issued between 2010 and 2015.

The result is that even individuals who read newspapers and are at
least somewhat aware of this issue have been confused by the
city's notice inviting them to challenge their old tickets through
a written or in-person administrative hearing.

A city spokesman argued the letter is clear: offering vehicle
owners a second chance to dispute their ticket.  Sorry, I'm not
buying it.

OPINION

As one loyal newspaper reader who contacted me put it: "How am I
supposed to remember the circumstance of a ticket I got in 2010 in
order to protest it?"

In her case, she said the city only has video from one of two red-
light tickets she received -- and paid -- in 2010, which the city
confirms is a problem with some of the oldest tickets.  She also
questions whether the yellow light was too short on the incident
for which there is a video, which the city says is not a permitted
defense.

So what should she and others do? Contest their tickets or ignore
the notice and await the outcome of the class-action case?

Jacie Zolna, a lawyer with Myron Cherry & Associates who brought
the class-action case, said he's probably received 100 calls or
emails in the past two days from people asking those questions.

More recently, Mr. Zolna filed a second lawsuit against the city
challenging the new notice procedure, which he calls the "biggest
scam in the world."

"They know all these prior debts are going to be invalidated. It's
not going to work," Mr. Zolna said.

Mr. Zolna said the city is just trying to make a retroactive
attempt to establish the motorists' legal liability for fines and
penalties.

But Mr. Zolna wouldn't offer any legal advice on how individuals
should respond to the city.  He said he believes it's "irrelevant"
whether someone contests their ticket.  That's based on his
expectation the city will be required to pay refunds or wipe out
debts through the class-action case.

But the city's notice warns: "If you do not respond by the
response deadline, the liabilities listed on the notice will be
deemed confirmed, and you will remain liable for any unpaid
amounts."

City Corporation Counsel Steve Patton has assured aldermen, who
approved the new notice procedure, that it will pass legal muster.
Mr. Patton also has argued the city's procedural errors should not
invalidate legitimate tickets.

I'm afraid the only real "additional opportunity" in the end will
be for Chicago taxpayers to have another chance to pay up for the
city's mistakes.


CHINA NORTH: April 4 Fairness Hearing on $925K Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP disclosed that the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California has approved the following class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of China North East
Petroleum Holdings Limited.

SUMMARY NOTICE

To: All Persons Or Entities Who Purchased Or Acquired Shares Of
Common Stock Of China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited
between September 3, 2010, and March 14, 2012, Inclusive.

You Are Hereby Notified, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on April 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, at the United States Courthouse,
350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the Litigation for the sum of $925,000.00 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Members
of the Settlement Class; (2) whether to certify the Settlement
Class; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated October
5, 2016; (4) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation, as well as Lead Plaintiff reimbursement, should be
approved. If you purchased or acquired common stock of China North
East Petroleum Holdings Limited between September 3, 2010, and
March 14, 2012, inclusive, your rights may be affected by this
Settlement. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to the Claims Administrator at: Baker Tilly Hong Kong
Limited Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson
Street, Suite 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063, Tel: (866) 274-
4004, Fax: (610) 565-7985, or you can download a copy at
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than
March 6, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

You may object to the Court if you do not like the Settlement, or
you may exclude yourself from the Settlement. Please see the
Notice for information concerning objection or exclusion.


CHRYSLER: May 2018 Trial Set in "uConnect" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that former U.S. attorney
Stephen Wigginton's transition to the private sector includes
representing a class of clients suing Chrysler over the alleged
hacking of the "uConnect" information and entertainment system.

A year-and-a half into the case, defendants are preparing to argue
for dismissal over plaintiffs' failure to prosecute.

The suit started on Aug. 4, 2015, when Mr. Wigginton still worked
for taxpayers.

Belleville attorney Christopher Cueto, brother of former St. Clair
County judge Lloyd A. Cueto, filed the complaint along with
Michael Gras of his firm.

Attorney Brian Flynn of Belleville stood as lead plaintiff, with
George Brown and Kelly Brown of Missouri standing second and
third.

The plaintiffs claim hackers could seize control of their vehicles
through uConnect.

Harman International Industries is named as a second defendant.

The complaint relies on an article that Wired magazine published
on July 31, 2015,

"Hackers remotely kill a Jeep on the highway with me in it," the
headline reads.

In the fall, Mr. Wigginton moved to dismiss two of three
plaintiffs from the suit, but U.S. District Judge Michael Reagan
denied the motion.

"To dismiss one claim or one party from a case that will otherwise
continue, a plaintiff must instead file an amended complaint,"
Judge Reagan wrote.

"[G]iven the current posture of the case, it looks as if the
plaintiffs will need leave if they choose to file a second amended
complaint."

Judge Reagan set a Dec. 23 deadline, which passed without action
on Mr. Wigginton's part.

In the original complaint, Messrs. Gras and Cueto wrote that
researchers were able to control radio, locks, wipers, center
console display, and other peripheral functions.

"They then demonstrated their ability to control engine
functionality by shutting the vehicle down in highway traffic,"
the complaint states.

"On a closed course, the researchers showed their ability to
affect steering and disable braking."

The lawyers wrote that Chrysler instituted a safety recall on July
23, 2015, but it didn't fix a fundamental design flaw.

"As technology develops, this problem will only get worse," they
wrote.  "These vehicles will never be safe or secure."

They argue that Chrysler and Harman should remedy the defect or
refund the purchase price of their vehicles.

They propose a national class action under federal warranty law.

They also propose state class actions for Illinois and Missouri
under warranty laws of those states and under theories of fraud,
negligence and unjust enrichment.

Belleville lawyer Lloyd M. Cueto, son of the former judge, entered
his appearance for plaintiffs on Aug. 11.

Chrysler retained John Rogers -- jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- of
the Thompson Coburn firm in St. Louis, and he moved to dismiss the
suit on Sept. 25, 2015.

Mr. Rogers wrote that plaintiffs alleged no hacking or any risk of
it.

"Plaintiffs don't allege a single problem with their vehicles
whatsoever," he wrote.

He wrote that the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act would preempt a
recall order.

Harman counsel Elizabeth Mazzocco of Chicago also moved to dismiss
the suit.

Plaintiffs then matched Chrysler by hiring a big firm across the
river.

On Nov. 3, 2015, Christopher Baucom --
cbaucom@armstrongteasdale.com -- and Lucas Pendry --
lpendry@armstrongteasdale.com -- of Armstrong Teasdale entered
appearances for Mr. Flynn and the Browns.

As soon as they entered, Messrs. Baucom and Pendry moved to extend
the time for answering Chrysler's motion.

Instead of answering, they amended the complaint on Dec. 22, 2015.

They added a fourth plaintiff, Michael Keith of Michigan.

Mr. Wigginton, who had resigned as U.S. attorney in November 2015,
entered his appearance for Mr. Flynn, the Browns, and Mr. Keith
last Feb. 16.

Mr. Rogers withdrew as Chrysler counsel on Feb. 19, leaving Kathy
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn
to file a pair of motions to dismiss.

One motion argued preemption, the other argued failure to state a
claim.

For Harman, Mazzocco also moved to dismiss.

On Feb. 23, Messrs. Wigginton, Pendry, and Gras represented
Mr. Flynn and the Browns at a scheduling conference before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson.

On March 21, Mr. Wiggington answered the motions to dismiss.

"The injuries plaintiffs allege are unremarkable examples of just
the type of economic injuries which courts commonly and
consistently find to be quintessential injuries in fact sufficient
to provide standing," Mr. Wigginton wrote.

He wrote that plaintiffs would not have purchased the affected
vehicles and their value had already diminished.

In discovery last June, Chrysler found a dealer's form showing the
Browns received an employee advantage discount.

The form provided arbitration for warranty disputes.

The Browns had not produced the form in discovery for their case.

On July 11, Sharon Rosenberg -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com --
of Thompson Coburn moved to compel arbitration of their warranty
claims.

She moved to stay the entire case until arbitration ended.

On July 25, Mr. Wigginton answered that the arbitration clause was
unconscionable.

He wrote that it didn't apply to other claims of the Browns.

He wrote that even if their claims were referred to arbitration,
it didn't apply to the claims of Messrs. Flynn and Keith.

"The Browns did not produce the form because they did not have
it," he wrote.

On Sept. 23, Judge Reagan directed the Browns to proceed with
warranty arbitration.

"The advantage agreement wasn't unconscionable under Missouri
law," Judge Reagan wrote.

"There's nothing to suggest that the Browns were pressured into
signing the agreement, that the arbitration provision was hidden
in the discount contract, or that anyone lied to the Browns about
the arbitration provision."

Judge Reagan stayed their other claims for 60 days.

"If this court beat the arbitrator to the punch on a ruling
concerning the non-warranty claims under Missouri law, say by
ruling that the diminished value damages weren't viable in a fraud
suit under Missouri law, the arbitrator may feel hamstrung by the
court's decision as it concerns the warranty claims under that
same source of law, or he could reject the court's logic and all
involved could face inconsistent decisions," he wrote.

"In addition, there is a chance that the arbitrator's ruling might
press the Browns to drop their suit against Chrysler or press
Chrysler to settle the entirety of the Browns' case against them,
thereby saving the court and the parties' resources."

Judge Reagan stayed all claims of the Browns against Harman,
finding his rulings on damages could impact the arbitrator's
ruling on warranty claims against Chrysler.

He ruled that Messrs. Flynn and Keith could proceed.

"It's doubtful that the other plaintiffs in this case will drop
their claims under Michigan and Illinois law if the arbitrator
rules that the Browns' warranty claims are bunk under Missouri
law, and it's likewise doubtful that Chrysler and Harman would
settle with the other plaintiffs if the arbitrator thought that
the Brown's Missouri warranty claims against Chrysler had merit,"
Reagan wrote.

Though Judge Reagan let Messrs. Flynn and Keith proceed, he signed
a separate order dismissing many of their claims and denying a
recall.

"Only four owners in a universe of over a million reported
anything close to a safety related problem," he wrote.

Judge Reagan found no allegation that the four were injured,
severely or otherwise.

"So Flynn and Keith lack standing to press injuries based on a
risk of injury or death and the fear of that injury," he wrote.

"That leaves them only with economic damages, meaning that the
negligence claims must go."

He wrote that they sufficiently alleged economic loss, but he
rejected several of their theories for recovery.

On Oct. 25, Mr. Wigginton moved to dismiss two counts that the
Browns brought against Chrysler under U.S. law and Missouri law.

He moved to lift the stay on other claims, writing that, "there
are no longer any claims in this action that will be submitted to
arbitration, and therefore, no claims to be stayed pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act."

On Nov. 7, he moved to dismiss the same two counts and six more.

Judge Reagan denied the motion on Nov. 22, finding the Browns
cited no rule of procedure or case law in support of their
voluntary dismissals.

He wrote that Rule 41 allows dismissals under certain
circumstances.

"The rule is limited to dismissals of actions, not parties or
claims, meaning that the rule cannot be used to cleave away one
claim or one party from a larger case," Judge Reagan wrote.

Judge Reagan granted leave to amend the complaint, but
Mr. Wigginton didn't amend it.

On Dec. 23, Ms. Rosenberg advised Judge Reagan that Chrysler would
move to dismiss all claims of the Browns for failure to prosecute.

As of Jan. 3, Chrysler hadn't filed a motion.

Judge Reagan has set trial in May 2018.


CITIBANK NA: Alaska High Court Affirms Arbitration Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned, Janet Hudson, on behalf of
herself and all others, Petitioner, v. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) NA,
ALASKA LAW OFFICES, INC., and CLAYTON WALKER, Respondents. CYNTHIA
STEWART, on behalf of herself and all others who are similarly
situated, Petitioner, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ALASKA LAW OFFICES,
INC., and CLAYTON WALKER, Respondents, Case Nos. S-14740/S-14826,
No. 7141 (Ala.), Justice Craig Stowers of the Alaska Supreme
Court:

     -- affirmed a state superior court's order staying court
        proceedings and submitting the dispute to arbitration;

     -- reversed and vacated the superior court's ruling that
        the arbitrator can order statewide injunctive relief; and

     -- remanded the action for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs defaulted on their Citibank credit card accounts, and
the issuing bank elected to litigate debt-collection actions.
After courts entered default judgments against the card holders,
the card holders filed new and separate suits alleging that the
bank violated the Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Act (UTPA) during the earlier debt collection actions.

The bank moved in each case to arbitrate the UTPA claims, and the
superior court stayed the UTPA litigation and ordered arbitration.

Hudson petitioned for review on three issues: (1) whether Citibank
waived its right to arbitrate the UTPA claims by litigating the
debt-collection actions in court; (2) the extent of any waiver;
and (3) whether the superior court erred in holding that the
arbitrator could issue statewide injunctive relief.

In his Opinion dated December 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Xg8grW from Leagle.com, Judge Stowers held that the
bank did not waive its right to demand arbitration of the separate
UTPA claims because the two claims were not sufficiently closely
related.  The Court, however, concluded that it was error for the
superior court to interpret the arbitration agreement on the
question of the availability of statewide injunctive relief: the
interpretation of an arbitration agreement is in the first
instance a matter for the arbitrator.  The Court said it was error
for the superior court to decide that the arbitrator could order
statewide injunctive relief. On remand the issue of the
availability and scope of injunctive relief must be referred to
arbitration.

Petitioners are represented by:

      James J. Davis, Jr., Esq.
      Goriune Dudukgian, Esq.
      NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT LLC
      310 K Street, Suite 200
      Anchorage, AK 99501
      Tel: (907) 264-6634

They are also represented by Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. --
mwessler@publicjustice.net -- PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.

Midland Funding LLC and Citibank (South Dakota) NA are represented
by Jon S. Dawson, Esq. -- jondawson@dwt.com -- and -- Elizabeth P.
Hodes, Esq. -- elizabethhodes@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Alaska Law Offices, Inc. and Clayton Walker are represented by
Marc G. Wilhelm, Esq. -- mwilhelm@richmondquinn.com -- RICHMOND &
QUINN


CLAY ROAD: "Tayum" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manolo Tayum, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Clay Road Furniture LLC and Furniture 4
Everyone LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-03726 (S.D. Tex., December 27,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a furniture shop located at 4303
Gessner Rd, Houston, TX 77041.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLEAR SKIES: Faces Class Action Over "Extortion" Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Torrent Freak reports that a new class-action lawsuit is targeting
a group of filmmakers, lawyers, and BitTorrent monitoring experts.
According to a complaint filed at an Illinois federal court, the
"copyright trolls" have been engaging in misleading, threatening
and intimidating tactics in order to obtain settlements from
alleged movie pirates.

In recent years so-called copyright trolls have been accused of
various dubious schemes and actions, including intimidation and
extortion.

In December it became apparent that these concerns are not just
one-sided complaints, when the U.S. Government launched a criminal
case against two of Prenda Law's principals.

The copyright trolling allegations are once again brought to the
forefront.  In a class action lawsuit filed in an Illinois federal
court on behalf of accused pirates, a group of rightsholders,
lawyers, and a torrent monitoring expert are accused taking part
in an "extortion conspiracy."

The case centers around Clear Skies Network (CSN) which brought
several lawsuits against alleged downloaders of the movie "Good
Kill."  As is common in these campaigns, the rightsholders work in
tandem with lawyers and BitTorrent monitoring experts to make
their case.

One of their targets was a 62-year-old woman, who has now decided
to strike back, also on behalf of other defendants that are in the
same position.

The complaint details how the woman was repeatedly threatened and
intimidated with a possible $150,000 in statutory damages, asking
her to settle for only a few thousand. It also mentions various
other allegations including false statements.

In addition, the complaint notes that the defendants may have
purposefully operated a honeypot where they themselves distributed
the infringing movie before its theatrical release in the U.S.

"CSN and/or the German John Doe relies on 'fake experts' and/or
honeypots or seeds its Motion Picture for the express purpose of
being able to claim that it has 'caught' people downloading the
copyrighted material," it reads.

The monitored torrents and the various associated IP-addresses
were used as the base evidence for copyright lawsuits throughout
the country. According to the class action complaint, the
rightsholders continuously relied on the same German monitoring
outfit whose evidence is insufficient to prove infringement.

Instead of protecting copyrights, the accused downloaders believe
that the entire practice is primarily meant to generate a steady
income flow for the filmmakers and other parties involved in the
conspiracy.

"CSN's existence has little to do with the protection of a
copyright, and is instead an entity formed for the primary purpose
of income generation through exploitation of the court system,"
the complaint states.

As such, they accuse the alleged conspiracy of using the copyright
cases as an extortion mechanism.

"[The defendants] have been engaged in a conspiracy to monetize
infringement whereby they use questionable means to entrap
unsuspecting Illinois residents who have allegedly violated CSN's
copyrights, and then extort money from these individuals using
threatening and misleading settlement and litigation tactics under
the guise of the Copyright Act."

For the 62-year-old woman, this led to physical and emotional
distress, and through the class action suit, she hopes to set the
record straight.

Together with other potential members of the class, who have been
treated similarly, she accuses CSN, the lawyers and the German
torrent monitoring outfit, of conspiracy to improperly prosecute
copyright infringement.

As compensation for the alleged unlawful acts, including of theft
by deception barratry and maintenance, they ask for actual
monetary damages as well as punitive damages.

According to FCT's 'Sophisticated Jane Doe', it is about time that
the Northern Illinois District takes a close look at these
practices, and she hopes that it will help to finally cure this
"judicial plague."


COMPANY STORE: Credit Card Receipts Risk ID Theft, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Groves at Times-News reports that lawyers from three states
put their names on a class-action lawsuit filed in Alamance County
over the number of digits of credit-card numbers a retailer puts
on receipts.

Chapel Hill resident Timothy Miles accuses The Company Store of
printing as many as 10 digits -- the first six and last four -- of
his credit card number on a receipt. Credit cards generally have
16 digits.

According to the suit, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act restricts retailers to printing no more than the last five
digits of a credit card number, and has since 2006, to reduce the
risk of identity theft.

There could be thousands of participants in the class-action suit,
according to the suit, including anyone "with sales or transaction
receipts whereon Defendant printed more than the last five digits
of the credit or debit card number." The transactions have to be
within two years of the suit's filing, and participants could be
awarded $100 to $1,000.

The defendants are bedding retailer The Company Store Inc. and
Hanover Company Store LLC. Parent company Hanover Direct, with
offices in La Crosse Wis., and Weehawken, N.J., is a major catalog
retailer. A call to the company's office was not returned.

The Company Store has brick-and-mortar stores in three states. At
least three are in Wisconsin, where the chain started, and one is
in the Tanger Outlet Center in Mebane.

Three lawyers were in the filing. Charlotte attorney Stephen
Ashley, Esq., at Ashley Law Firm P.C., referred questions to the
lead attorney in the suit.  Calls to Jackson, Miss., attorney
Brian Herrington, info@bherringtonlaw.com Herrington Law, PA and
Glendale, Calif., attorney Chant Yedalian -- chant@chant.mobi --
Chant & Company were not returned.

Herrington Law specializes in class-action suits, according to its
website, and Yedalian, of Chant & Co., a Professional Law
Corporation, bills himself as a consumer activist, and class-
action suites are one of his specialties.


CONAGRA FOODS: Recent Ruling Not Bad for Class Action Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No.
15-55727, refused to engraft an "administrative feasibility"
requirement to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's prerequisites
for certifying a class action.  What this means, basically, is
that in Ninth Circuit courts, a named plaintiff seeking class
certification need not "demonstrate an administratively feasible
way to identify all class members at the certification stage."
(Slip Op. at 11 n.6).  "All," however, is a very important word in
that sentence.

On the face of it, the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicts with the
Third Circuit's decision in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300
(3d Cir. 2013) and later cases.  The Third Circuit explicitly
requires class plaintiffs to demonstrate "ascertainability" at the
certification stage.  In reality, however, there would seem to be
major areas of agreement between the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Briseno and the Third Circuit's core holding.  Consumer class
action defendants still have plenty of arguments
-- even in the Ninth Circuit -- that proposed classes fail because
there will never be a reliable way to determine who is a member of
the class.

The Third Circuit's ascertainability doctrine arose from two cases
with facts worthy of a law school exam. In Bayer, 727 F.3d at 304,
the named plaintiff himself could not remember when he purchased
the product he was challenging and was not even sure which product
he purchased.  That testimony made it impossible for the Third
Circuit to agree that the defendant should have to swallow
affidavits from absent class members that they, too, purchased the
challenged product, without being able to mount individual
challenges to those affidavits.  And, in Marcus v. BMW of North
America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 594 (3d Cir. 2012), neither the
plaintiff nor the defendant had any idea which tires were on the
plaintiff's car.  The plaintiffs had discarded the tires, and the
defendant had no relevant records.  The Third Circuit held that
the plaintiff had to come forward with some kind of a plan to
determine who was in the class, beyond proposing to rely on
potential class members' unreliable and unsupported "say so."

To the extent the Third Circuit requires a separate showing of
"ascertainability" that is not listed among the requirements in
Rule 23(a) or (b) -- separate, for example, from the requirements
that common questions predominate over individual questions and
that a class action be "manageable" -- the Ninth Circuit refused
to go that far.  At the same time, however, the Ninth Circuit
panel suggested it agreed with the way other Courts of Appeals had
adopted the Third Circuit's core holding, focused on the
predominance and manageability requirements, without going so far
as to impose a separate requirement of ascertainability. Briseno's
footnote 6 cited with approval the First Circuit's holding in In
re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2015),
that district courts must be assured "that, by the time a case
reaches the liability and claims administration stages, there will
be an administratively feasible way to distinguish injured from
uninjured class members."  It also cited with approval the Second
Circuit's holding in Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 806 F.3d
22, 24-26 (2d Cir. 2015), "that a class definition must be
objective and definite."

It therefore is possible to read Briseno narrowly.  The Ninth
Circuit clearly held that sellers of small-ticket consumer goods
do not have a free-standing defense to class certification solely
because, at the class certification stage, the named plaintiff
cannot say with certainty that she will be able to identify all
purchasers of the product in a reliable manner.  The court most
certainly did not, however, cut off arguments that injured vs.
uninjured people never can be reliably distinguished, or that a
class definition is improperly "fail safe" because it turns on
merits issues.  Those defenses, grounded in the predominance and
manageability requirements, remain.

Indeed, although the Ninth Circuit panel clearly was more
supportive of "say so" affidavits than was the Third Circuit in
Marcus and Bayer, even that part of the holding was limited.  In
Briseno, the plaintiffs asserted that (1) they had a means of
calculating aggregate damages to be awarded to the entire class,
and (2) "say-so" affidavits would arrive only "after a liability
[and damages] determination has already been made."  For those
reasons, the panel focused on the possibility of intentional
fraud, not mistakes:  "Why would a consumer risk perjury charges
and spend time and effort to submit a false claim for a de minimis
monetary recovery?"  Slip Op. at 17.

The question in Briseno was not whether class members would
reliably remember having purchased the relevant product, as in
Bayer, or whether they would even have any way to know they were
class members, as in Marcus.  Concerned only about fraud, the
Ninth Circuit said that defendants have other tools to detect and
refuse bad claims by "rel[ying] on claim administrators, various
auditing processes, sampling for fraud detection, follow-up
notices to explain the claims process, and other techniques
tailored by the parties and the court to validate claims."  Slip.
Op. at 20 (internal quotation and citation omitted).  If "say so"
affidavits would have impacted the amount the defendant was
expected to pay if it lost, the Ninth Circuit panel explicitly
said it might have reached a different result:  "[I]dentification
of class members will not affect a defendant's liability in every
case."  Slip Op. at 22 (emphasis added).

To be sure, Briseno is a setback for consumer class action
defendants in the Ninth Circuit.  It also deepens a Circuit
conflict and increases the odds of Supreme Court review.  Absent
high court review, however, or while we are awaiting it, Briseno
need not be a significant setback.  "Ascertainability" may be out
as a free-standing requirement in the Ninth Circuit, but
plaintiffs still have to satisfy predominance and manageability,
and may not be able to do so if they cannot objectively and
reliably determine who is in their proposed class.


CONTINENTAL HOME: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Feruza Rakhimova, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Continental Home Care, Inc., Case No.
522994/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., December 27, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay for all hours worked,
time and one half the minimum wage rate for hours worked in excess
of 40 in a work week and to provide pay stubs and other wage
notices that conform with the requirements of the New York Labor
Law.

Continental Home Care, Inc. provides home health care to frail
elderly individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


COOKNSOLO INC: Faces "Peters" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Peters, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. CookNSolo, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06637-PD (E.D.
Penn., December 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

CookNSolo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant called Zahav and
located at 237 St. James Place, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492


DOLE PACKAGED: Sued for Falsely Marketing Fruit & Oatmeal Goods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Ramirez, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC; and Does 1 through
25, Case No. 8:16-cv-02260 (C.D. Cal., December 27, 2016), arises
out of the Defendants' false and misleading representations in
their advertising and packaging of the Fruit & Oatmeal, Parfait,
and Mixations products.

Dole Packaged Foods, LLC is an American agricultural multinational
corporation headquartered in Westlake Village, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Telephone: (949) 263-5992
      Facsimile: (949) 209-1948
      E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

         - and -

      Ross Cornell, Esq.
      THE POTIER LAW GROUP
      111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
      Long Beach, CA  90802
      Telephone: (562) 612-1708
      Facsimile: (562) 394-9556
      E-mail:  ross.law@me.com


DR. REDDY'S: Faces Rochester Suit Over Divalproex Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06645-CMR (E.D.
Penn., December 27, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise,
fix, and maintain prices, allocate markets, and rig bids for
generic divalproex sodium ("Divalproex ER").

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              nurban@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Class-Action Settlement Checks Waiting for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Cieslewicz at Cincinnati Business Courier reports that
Thousands of Duke Energy customers are a step closer to receiving
settlement checks in a class-action lawsuit against the electric
power holding company.

Duke, based in Charlotte, N.C., agreed to pay $81 million in 2015
to settle the lawsuit over a subsidiary's contracts with large
industrial and business customers of Duke Energy Ohio.

On January 5, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, a Cincinnati firm
representing the plaintiffs, filed a motion requesting the
approval of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. to allow for distribution of checks
totaling $50 million.

Duke said it agreed to settle to avoid paying additional
litigation costs and the uncertainty that goes with a lawsuit.
Shareholders will pay for the settlement, not ratepayers. The
lawsuit alleged Cincinnati Gas & Electric, which Duke later
acquired, cut deals to reduce bills with large users such as
Procter & Gamble, General Electric and others so they would end
their opposition to a rate increase that needed approval from the
Ohio Public Utilities Commission in 2004.

The money will be distributed as follows:

Up to $25 million to Duke Energy Ohio residential customers who
were customers at any time during the period beginning Jan. 1,
2005 and ending Dec. 31, 2008.

Up to $25 million to Duke Energy Ohio non-residential customers
(such as businesses and local governments) who were customers at
any time during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2005 and ending Dec.
31, 2008.

$8 million to fund energy-related programs to benefit Duke Energy
Ohio customers who were customers at any time during the period
beginning Jan. 1, 2005 and ending Dec. 31, 2008.

The remaining $23 million will go to pay plaintiffs' legal fees,
settlement fund distribution costs and other expenses.

If Sargus approves the request, it would take about three weeks
from that point for the 200,000 checks to be distributed.
Residential claimants who paid Duke tariffed electricity rates for
the entire class period of 2005-2008 would receive about $140.
Non-residential claimants may receive more based on their usage
during the class period.


DUKE ENERGY: SPDR ETF Receives Class Action Settlement Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------
The SPDR(R) Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) listed in the table below,
announced on Jan. 6 that the Funds received a payment as
authorized claimants from a class action settlement related to
Duke Energy Corporation (DUK).

The total payments to be received by the Funds are listed below.
When the Funds calculate their net asset value ("NAV") per share
on Monday, January 9, 2017, it is estimated that the Fund's NAV
will be impacted in the amounts stated below based on shares
outstanding as of January 5, 2017.

Fund
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY)
The Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLU)

Payment Amount
$3,338,534
$3,927,107

Shares Outstanding as of
January 5, 2017
1,014,982,116
139,774,160

Per Share Impact
$0.0033
$0.0281

                About SPDR Exchange Traded Funds

SPDR ETFs -- http://www.spdrs.com-- are a comprehensive family
spanning an array of international and domestic asset classes.
SPDR ETFs are managed by SSGA Funds Management, Inc., a registered
investment adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of State Street
Corporation.  The funds provide investors with the flexibility to
select investments that are precisely aligned to their investment
strategy.  Recognized as an industry pioneer, State Street created
the first US listed ETF in 1993 (SPDR S&P 500(R) - Ticker SPY) and
has remained on the forefront of responsible innovation, as
evidenced by the introduction of many ground-breaking products,
including first-to-market launches with gold, international real
estate, international fixed income, and sector ETFs.


DUPONT: Plans to Appeal $10.5MM Verdict in C8 Exposure Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Harris, writing for The State Journal, reports that
DuPont plans to appeal the $10.5 million punitive damages a
federal jury in Columbus awarded an Ohio man for exposing him to
C8, a cleaning agent the company used in the manufacture of Teflon
at its Washington Works south of Parkersburg, WV.

Kenneth Vigneron Sr. had claimed he developed testicular cancer
after long-term exposure to C8, otherwise known as
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).  DuPont bought C8 from 3M from the
1950s through 2000, then manufactured it itself before eventually
discontinuing its use.

The jury previously awarded Mr. Vigneron $2 million in
compensatory damages, bringing his total award to $12.5 million.

DuPont spokesman Dan Turner said the company was "disappointed in
the verdict, which we will appeal."

"We believe the verdict was the result of trial rulings that
misrepresented the findings of an independent science panel and
misled jurors about the risks of C8 exposure," he said.

Some 3,500 lawsuits were filed alleging DuPont was aware as early
as 1954 of the potential health risks from exposure to C8, and its
own researchers had warned the company in 1961 of its toxicity yet
the company continued to use the chemical in its manufacturing
process nor did it alert the public to the risks.

A 2004 settlement agreement for a class action lawsuit filed in
West Virginia three years earlier called required formation of an
independent science panel to decide whether a probable link exists
between exposure to C8 and health problems.  The panel's report,
released in 2011, suggested C8 exposure could lead to kidney
cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease,
pregnancy-induced hypertension and diagnosed high cholesterol.

Harold Block, a Keep Your Promises advisor, said the Mr. Vigneron
award means "two separate juries have now ruled that DuPont acted
with malice and conscious disregard for mid-Ohio Valley residents
in dumping C-8 into our drinking water."  Keep Your Promise is a
community-based organization developed in partnership with the
nonprofit Action Network Fund.  Its mission is to "(hold) DuPont
to the promises it made to the people of the Greater Mid-Ohio
Valley in connection to the company's contamination with the
chemical C-8," according to a statement issued by Block.

"We now know that not only was the company aware of the dangers of
C-8, but that they also knew the chemical was contaminating local
drinking water at harmful levels.  Despite this knowledge, and the
availability of cheap, alternative disposal methods, DuPont
continued to poison surrounding communities, deny any harm, and
cover up the evidence," Block said.

Mr. Block said 40 more trials are slated for 2017, increasing the
pressure on DuPont to negotiate a global settlement. "Yet another
punitive award, this time for Kenneth Vigneron, exponentially
drives up the price tag of a settlement," he noted.

DuPont's Washington Works is now owned and operated by Chemours, a
spin off from DuPont's chemical operations.  On its website,
Chemours states DuPont "never believed that the extremely low
levels of C-8 that reached the community would cause any harm.
During the time at issue in these lawsuits, federal and state
environmental authorities had never established regulations on the
use, handling, emissions or disposal of C-8."

In a statement released after the jury's decision, Chemours
spokesperson Cynthia Salitsky said they expect DuPont to appeal
the verdict, subject to post-trial motions, "to address important,
unresolved issues that affect the broader, ongoing multi-district
litigation."

"Of the 3500 claims in the MDL, the majority allege high
cholesterol and thyroid disease, not cancer diagnoses,"
Ms. Salitsky said.  "Each of these claims will be evaluated on an
individual basis due to the unique facts present in every case.
Litigation of this kind typically takes place over many years, and
interim results do not predict the ultimate outcome.  As
previously disclosed, DuPont is the named defendant in each of the
cases and is liable for any judgment. In the event DuPont claims
it is entitled to indemnification from Chemours as to some or all
of the judgment, Chemours retains its defenses to such claims."


DUPONT: January 17 Trial Scheduled in C8 Exposure MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlemnts.com reports that DuPont's losing -- to the
tune of millions.  A total of $10.5 million in punitive damages
has been awarded to a man who alleges DuPont's C8 chemical dumping
caused his cancer.  This punitive award is the largest punitive to
date in the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The jury awarded the $10.5 million on top of $2 million in
compensatory damages, to Kenneth Vigneron as well as his
attorney's fees.  Mr. Vigneron claims that DuPont's decades long
practice of dumping Teflon ingredient C8 into the air and water
from their factory on the Ohio river in West Virginia, has caused
a cancer cluster in a number of Ohio water districts.

Verdicts from two earlier trials favoring the plaintiffs in the
MDL are on appeal.  The next trial is set to begin January 17,
with 11 more trials set for later in the year in four different
cities.

The cases are In re: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Personal
Injury Litigation, case number 2:13-md-02433, and Vigneron v.
DuPont, case number 2:13-cv-00136, both in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.


EASY PC: State Farm No Duty to Defend TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Todd Smith, Esq. -- tsmith@gklaw.com -- of Godfrey & Kahn S.C., in
an article for The National Law Review, reports that stating that
Wisconsin law does not "require an insurer to speculate beyond the
written words of the complaint in order to imagine a claim that a
plaintiff might be making or to determine all the potential issues
that could be sought," the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently
affirmed a finding of no coverage for claims plead pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), due to a TCPA exclusion.
The decision also recognizes the breadth of the exclusion and that
it applies even when the same allegations are re-cast as separate
causes of action.

In State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Easy PC Solutions, LLC,
the court affirmed a trial court ruling that State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co. had no duty to defend its insured in a class action
suit alleging violations of the TCPA, due to a TCPA exclusion in
State Farm's policy.  The lawsuit arose out of unsolicited or
"junk" faxes that the insured, Easy PC, sent to Wilder
Chiropractic, Inc. on three separate days between Sept. 30 and
Oct. 18, 2010.  These unsolicited faxes are prohibited by the
TCPA.

After receiving the faxes, Wilder sued Easy PC, alleging
violations of the TCPA as well as conversion.  Easy PC tendered
its defense to its insurer, State Farm, which refused to provide a
defense because its insurance policy contained an exclusion
barring coverage for any claim "arising directly or indirectly out
of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate .
. .[t]he Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), including any
amendment of or addition to such law . . ." Easy PC settled the
lawsuit and State Farm subsequently brought a declaratory judgment
action to resolve the coverage dispute, and the trial court found
that State Farm had no duty to defend Easy PC.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the
conversion claim was subject to the TCPA exclusion even though
that cause of action had different elements.  The court stated
"[a]ll of the actions that Wilder's complaint alleges Easy PC took
that give rise to the conversion claim are the same actions
alleged to give rise to the TCPA violation."  Accordingly,
coverage for those claims was expressly excluded by the TCPA
exclusion.

A second issue in the case was whether the complaint alleged
improper faxes prior to the 2010-2011 policy period, which was
important because those policies did not contain a TCPA exclusion.
Wilder argued that the class included persons who received faxes
from Easy PC four years and six years before commencing the class-
action lawsuit, implicating earlier State Farm policies. The Court
rejected this argument too, as the complaint was utterly devoid of
any allegation that Easy PC transmitted faxes on dates other than
the three specific days in September and October 2010.

Although this case should give some comfort to insurers
considering coverage for class action allegations, we note that
the outcome may have been different if Wilder had included
allegations in its complaint alleging violations of the TCPA pre-
dating the policy period that included the TCPA exclusion.


EMERY FEDERAL: Court Okays "Vigna" Settlement, Cuts Lawyer Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan J. Dlott of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Stipulation of Settlement and
Release for Collective Class Members and Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs in the case captioned, RUTH VIGNA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-
51 (S.D. Ohio).

The action was initiated on January 26, 2015 by Plaintiffs Ruth
Vigna and Irina Abidin on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals who worked for Defendants Emery Federal
Credit Union and Emery Financial Services, Inc. as loan processors
and were allegedly denied overtime compensation and minimum wage
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201. The action is a spin-off of another FLSA collective
action brought before the undersigned against Emery, O'Neal v.
Emery, 13-cv-22. In O'Neal, the Court granted conditional
certification to a class of loan officers, but denied conditional
certification to a class of loan processors.

Following the Court's Order, on January 26, 2015, Plaintiffs
brought this action on behalf of a class of loan processors. On
June 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Conditional
Certification requesting the Court to conditionally certify a
class of all persons who worked as loan processors or in similar
positions for Emery at any time during the three years prior to
the filing of the Complaint. The Court granted in part and denied
in part that Motion on January 13, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed two unopposed motions:
Plaintiffs' Settlement Approval Motion and Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs. On October 4, 2016, the Court held a status conference with
the parties regarding the pending Motions and asked counsel to
review the its Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs for mistakes and to closely review
counsel's records for secretarial and/or associate work and
formally file those billing records.

Following the October 4, 2016 conference, Plaintiff filed a third
version of its Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law for Approval
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The parties agree to settle all
claims for $410,000 (Settlement Fund), which represents payment of
55% of wages allegedly owed based upon the report by Plaintiffs'
expert, Dr. Liesl Fox. Plaintiffs request the Court to approve the
following proposed deductions from the Settlement Fund: attorneys'
fees in the amount of $135,300 (constituting 33% of the Settlement
Fund), litigation expenses and costs in the amount of $10,750, and
enhancement payments to Plaintiffs Vigna and Abidin in the amount
of $5,000 each. The remaining $235,950 of the Settlement Fund is
to be divided among the 75 eligible Collective Class Members, the
average recovery for which is approximately $3,386, but is to be
calculated individually based upon Dr. Fox's report.

In her Order dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/EJ2zqQ from Leagle.com, Judge Dlott found that an
overall award lower than 29.9% is appropriate because the Court is
not persuaded that this case was significantly more complex or
time-consuming.

The parties are instructed to modify the final Settlement to
include a 25% award of attorneys' fees, as opposed to a 33% award,
for a total award of $102,500. The Court approves the request for
litigation costs in the amount of $10,750, the award of $5,000
incentive awards to each Plaintiff Vigna and Plaintiff Abidin, and
the proposed method for Settlement administration.

Irina Abidin, et al. are represented by Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
-- deborahg@meizgray.com -- MEIZLISH & GRAYSON -- and Daniel W.
Craig, Esq. -- dan@donelonpc.com -- DONELON, P.C.

Emery Federal Credit Union, et. al are represented by Fred G.
Pressley, Jr., Esq. -- fpressley@porterwright.com -- and Rachel E.
Burke, Esq. -- rburke@porterwright.com -- PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS &
ARTHUR


EMORY COLLEGE: Students Demanding Free Tampons on Campus
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Barnes at 10News reports that Julie Chen, a sophomore at
Emory College, wanted to help students get access to free tampons
on campus, but she didn't know how. So she started a petition last
January to see how many people would use the supplies. In one
week, it received more than 900 responses.

"It wasn't supposed to go viral," said Chen, now a junior and the
college council vice president of finance. "Seeing all of those
names made me really motivated and passionate to keep going on
with it."

The petition received so many responses that Emory launched a
pilot program during the fall 2016 semester to provide free
tampons. The university changed the tampon dispensers in three
locations -- a dining hall, the library and one of its academic
buildings -- to make them free. If enough people use the program,
it could become a permanent, university-wide initiative.

"Everyone was really excited about it, and we've definitely heard
positive responses," Chen said. "One girl left a comment that
said, 'If men had a need for tampons, they'd be falling out of the
sky.'"

Emory is not alone: Students at colleges across the country are
demanding free menstrual products. The University of Arizona,
Columbia University, Reed College and the University of Minnesota,
among others, have launched similar programs on campus, according
to Inside Higher Ed.

"Every female has a period in some form, and these supplies aren't
luxury items and should not be treated as luxury items," said Erin
Deal, the infrastructure committee director at the University of
Minnesota Student Association. "They're a necessity. They're a
sanitation item."

Deal helped expand the university's decade-old menstrual health
program in September after getting her period on campus and having
to ask strangers for supplies. She took inspiration from Brown
University's menstrual health program and added tampons and pads
in more bathrooms, including gender-neutral bathrooms, at Emory.

Chen and Deal said their programs have been successful, but
Columbia University had to cancel its menstrual pilot program
after only half a semester because of a lack of interest,
according to the Columbia Daily Spectator. Columbia's health
services have continued to provide tampons and pads upon request.
(The university did not respond to requests for an interview.)

The cost of supplies is another hindrance to the success of these
programs, Deal said. Tampons and pads can cost a person up to $7-
$10 every month. That plus other menstruation-related items can
amount to more than $18,000 over a lifetime. In 2015 alone, U.S.
consumers spent $3.1 billion on pads, tampons and liners,
according to the website Euromonitor.

This expense could be one reason why 86 percent of women said they
have been caught without needed supplies in public, according to
Free the Tampons, an organization that works to make menstrual
products freely accessible in public restrooms.

"Women risk finding themselves in a situation where they lose
their dignity and [feel] really humiliated because of the
consequences of not having access to what they need," said Nancy
Kramer, founder of Free the Tampons.

Women often feel embarrassed when this happens because of the
stigma around menstruation, which prevents people from talking
openly about and getting resources for their periods, said Chris
Bobel, president of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research.

"Because it's a reality that's shrouded in mystery -- the work of
the menstrual silence and secrecy -- we do menstruators a great
disseverance by not paying adequate and non-normalized, non-
panicked attention to it," Bobel said.

The movement to stop menstrual stigma has caught fire in recent
years, Kramer said. National Public Radio called 2015 "the year of
the period" because so many people, from Olympians to actresses to
politicians, talked publicly about periods.

In March, President Barack Obama became the first president to
comment on menstruation when he asked why 40 states tax tampons as
a luxury item. In July, New York became the 11th state to
eliminate the sales tax on menstrual care products. Washington,
D.C. and Florida also plan to get rid of the tax.

"I think we're starting to see a real shift in how people are
approaching menstrual care that's really critical," said Sarah
Christopherson, policy advocacy director at the National Women's
Health Network. "It is really critical to remove the stigma. This
is a natural, healthy part of women's lives and the lives of
people with uteruses."

Girls sometimes miss school because they do not have menstrual
products and face this stigma, Free the Tampons founder Kramer
said. That's why New York City passed legislation in July to
provide free menstrual products in all public schools, shelters
and correctional facilities.

"They realized that students' attendance actually increased by 2.4
percent after their pilot program," Kramer said. "That was a
pretty staggering statistic for them to realize that, in fact,
girls and women stay home from school when they have their
menstrual cycle. So it's well worth the investment."

Schools and colleges need not only to provide products, but also
to have a "menstrual discourse" that openly talks about periods in
order to eliminate the stigma, Bobel said.

"Good information is the basis of good decision making, so it's
really important that people have access to knowledge and support
so they can indeed make those healthy decisions," Bobel said.
"Products without education is really not attacking the problem."

Chen said that the Emory menstrual program has already started a
conversation on menstrual health.

"Talking to other people, it's taught me that it's important for
equality purposes," Chen said. "It's a good step in the right
direction of equality and prioritizing women's health."

Rachel Falek is a member of the USA TODAY College contributor
network.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Endologix Inc.
securities during the period between August 2, 2016 through
November 16, 2016, inclusive.  Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until March 6, 2017 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Endologix securities during the Class Period.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Endologix did not
have the necessary clinical data for U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") premarket approval of its Nellix(R)
EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System.

According to the complaint, following a November 16, 2016
announcement that the FDA requested the Company to provide them
with follow up data for two years for patients enrolled in the
EVAS-FORWARD-IDE study to assess Nellix, the value of Endologix
shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Endologix securities purchased on or after August 2, 2016 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at -- hoffman@browerpiven.com -- or by telephone at (410)
415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Endologix, Inc. ("Endologix" or the "Company" securities between
August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Endologix investors have until March 6, 2017 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Endologix investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Endologix develops, manufactures, markets and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.

Nellix is Endologix's endovascular aneurysm sealing system for
infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.  On August 2, 2016,
Endologix indicated that it would seek approval of the original
version of the Nellix system that was used in the Nellix
investigational device exemption (IDE) clinical trial, the EVAS
FORWARD-IDE Study.  However, on November 16, 2016, Endologix
disclosed that the FDA had requested a two-year follow-up on
patients enrolled in the EVAS-FORWARD-IDE study to accurately
evaluate Nellix.  On this news, shares of Endologix fell over 20%
to close at just $7.82 per share on November 16, 2016.

Then on December 27, 2016 Endologix announced a temporarily hold
on AFX Endovascular AAA System shipments, citing the need to
complete an investigation of a manufacturing issue with different
sizes of the device.

The Complaint filed in this class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Endologix did not have the necessary clinical data for FDA
premarket approval of its Nellix(R) EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing
System; and (2) consequently, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On this news, shares of Endologix have fallen nearly 20% to just
$5.76 per share during intra-day trading on December 27, 2016.

If you purchased shares of Endologix during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than March 6, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


ETHICON INC: Judge Says Defective Mesh Judgment Should Stand
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Philadelphia judge presiding over a transvaginal mesh case that
resulted in a $13.7 million judgment said the award should not be
disturbed on appeal.

In an opinion issued in response to Johnson & Johnson subsidiary
Ethicon's appeal of the judgment, Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas Judge Kenneth J. Powell Jr. wrote that the state Superior
Court should allow the award to stand.

The judgment stems from the case of Sharon Carlino, who claimed
Ethicon's mid-urethral sling device failed because it was
negligently designed, and that its failure caused her to suffer
permanent pain during sex.  The device was implanted in her in
2005 to combat urinary incontinence; however, she claimed the mesh
was defective because its pores were too small, it had a tendency
to degrade, it was overly friable because it was cut by a machine
and not a laser, and the mesh can erode through the patient's
tissue.

After a 14-day trial last February, a jury awarded Ms. Carlino
$3.25 million in compensatory damages, $250,000 to her husband for
loss of consortium, and $10 million in punitive damages.  Delay
damages in the amount of roughly $240,000 were later awarded.

Ethicon had asked the court to either enter judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, grant a new trial, or reduce the
verdict award.  In doing so, Ethicon raised several arguments for
why the jury's verdict should be reversed, including statute of
limitations, inadequate jury instructions, and evidentiary
disputes.

Judge Powell disagreed with Ethicon's argument that the punitive
damages should be remitted because there was no evidence
Ms. Carlino's injuries were caused by "actual malice" or "wanton
and willful disregard" for the potential harm to a patient.

"The evidence of defendant-appellant's wanton and willful
disregard for plaintiff adequately supported the jury's award of
punitive damages," Judge Powell said.

He added that the jury was entitled to find from the evidence that
Ethicon deceptively withheld informations about the risks of
having a transvaginal implant.

"The jury was free to determine that Ethicon provided warnings so
deliberately misleading as to warrant the imposition of punitive
damages," the judge said.

Judge Powell also held firm on the issue of compensatory damages
in response to Ethicon's argument that they be remitted as well.
Ethicon argued that there was no testimony as to past or future
medical expenses, and characterized her pelvic pain as
intermittent.

"To characterize her pain this way is to minimize her damages to
an unreasonable degree, even as a defense argument," Judge Powell
said. "This is not merely 'intermittent' pain -- it is chronic
pain, pain that will be with her for the rest of her life, with no
real prospect of resolution."

Ken Murphy of Drinker Biddle & Reath represented Ethicon and
declined to comment on Powell's opinion.

Shanin Specter -- Shanin.Specter@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline &
Specter, who represented the Carlinos, said he is "very
optimistic" the Superior Court will uphold the judgment.


FALLS FESTIVAL: Suit Mulled Against Organizers Over Crowd Crush
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press and The Examiner report that
organisers of the Falls Festival music event in Victoria could
face legal action from some of the 80-odd people who were injured
in a crowd crush.  The festival says a "confluence of events" led
to the serious incident in Lorne on December 30 which left almost
20 people in hospital.

But a law firm has spoken to 10 patrons and is asking for more
revellers to come forward as it contemplates a potential class
action.

The firm claims the design of access to and from the Grand Theatre
venue may be to blame.

In the days after the crowd crush, festival co-producer
Jessica Ducrou said organisers had spent many years working with
authorities and emergency services resulting in an "impeccable
safety record" for the previous 24 years.  Initial reports
suggested the December 30 crush began when patrons at the front of
a crowd leaving a performance in the theatre lost their footing
but the crowd behind kept on coming.

Parents of some of those injured slammed organisers of the
festival for poor communication in the aftermath of the stampede.

Meanwhile, organisers in Tasmania are dealing with allegations
that five women were sexually assaulted at the festival held in
Marion Bay.

Two more women have told police they were sexually assaulted at
Tasmania's Falls Festival after three young women said they had
been attacked at the annual music festival.  One said she was
raped.

But police believe there may be more victims.

The lead investigator on the case said the bravery of the first
three female complainants had prompted others to follow suit.

"Another two victims have come forward to us and we may get others
as well," Detective Inspector Steve Burk said.

"It's clear to us that there have been other offences committed.

"We're grateful to the people who have come forward."


FANDUEL: Pre-Trial Proceedings Underway in Mass. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Lynn Miller, writing for The Greenville Sun, reports that
a civil lawsuit naming an online sports wagering site filed by the
wife of former local bank manager Kenneth Lynn Miller has been
dismissed in state court, while a second civil action is now part
of a class-action case that will be decided by a federal judge in
Massachusetts.

Kenneth Miller is to be sentenced in March in a seperate criminal
case in U.S. District Court in Greeneville.

Last year, Erica Miller filed lawsuits seeking damages from
FanDuel and DraftKings Inc. for money lost by her husband, former
manager of the First Tennessee Bank branch at 206 N. Main St., on
the sports wagering sites.

On Jan. 4, Chancellor Douglas T. Jenkins formally dismissed with
prejudice a Greene County Chancery Court civil lawsuit filed by
Erica Miller in her name and on behalf of her minor son against
DraftKings "to recover the net losses incurred" by her husband,
according to court documents.

Dismissal with prejudice means the court has made a final
determination on the case and plaintiffs are forbidden to file
another lawsuit based on the same grounds.

"The matters in controversy have been resolved," the consent order
signed by Jenkins states.

CLASS-ACTION SUIT

A second civil suit filed by Erica Miller against New York City-
based FanDuel is now part of a class-action lawsuit involving more
than 80 suits from plaintiffs across the country claiming players
were duped into illegal gambling.

The Miller vs. FanDuel case was originally filed in Chancery
Court, transferred to federal court and jurisdiction was moved in
August from the Eastern District of Tennessee to the District of
Massachusetts, where pre-trial proceedings are underway.

In December, Jenkins granted a joint motion by defendants and
plaintiffs in the DraftKings case "to allow the parties to
finalize a settlement that has been reached in principle by the
parties," according to a document signed Dec. 5 by Jenkins.
Terms of the settlement were not included in court documents.
Lawyers for Erica Miller, DraftKings and New York City-based
FanDuel declined comment or did not return calls seeking comment
on the cases.

The civil lawsuits filed last year in Chancery Court claimed that
between April 7, 2015, and Feb. 16, 2016, Kenneth Miller
"delivered $1,521,379 to FanDuel for the purpose of betting on
FanDuel.com."

The civil action also claims that during the same time period,
Kenneth Miller withdrew more than $976,000 from his FanDuel
account, losing a net amount of more than $545,000 "upon games,
wagers and/or lottery contests promoted and operated by FanDuel."
The FanDuel lawsuit now in federal court seeks compensatory
damages of $545,119.22 plus interest and cost, and punitive
damages of more than $1 million.

The lawsuit filed against DraftKings claimed that between Jan. 1
and April 6, 2015, Kenneth Miller lost $46,400 "in gambling and
illegal lottery contests" to DraftKings.

In court documents filed in 2016 responding to the civil
complaints, FanDuel and DraftKings denied all allegations.

CRIMINAL CASE

Mr. Miller, 37, awaits a March sentencing date in U.S. District
Court after entering guilty pleas last November to one count of
theft by a bank officer or employee and four counts of attempt to
evade or defeat tax.

Between April 2012 and February 2016, Kenneth Lynn Miller
"knowingly embezzled, abstracted, purloined or willfully applied
money, funds or credits of such bank or entrusted to the care of
such bank," according to court documents outlining the plea
agreement reached between Miller and the government.

Mr. Miller, also a financial advisor, was "terminated for cause"
on Feb. 25, 2016, from his role with First Tennessee Bank,
according to the plea agreement.

According to the plea agreement reached in October 2016 in the
U.S. District Court criminal case, Mr. Miller incurred a "net
unreimbursed loss" of $1,086,287.  The total includes $967,573
that Miller obtained from First Tennessee Bank accounts.

The plea agreement states that Miller "lost or spent" most of the
money "by gambling online using various websites, including
DraftKings and FanDuel, and by using the embezzled and misapplied
funds to make payments on various consumer debts" with First
Tennessee Bank and other financial institutions.

The maximum punishment for the offenses Mr. Miller entered guilty
pleas to totals at least 35 years and a $1.1 million fine, along
with up to eight years' supervised release, according to court
documents.

Mr. Miller remains free on bond pending sentencing.

Mr. Miller allegedly filed "false and fraudulent" income tax
returns between 2012 and 2016, the plea agreement states.

Mr. Miller worked for First Tennessee Bank from 2000 through
February at various branches, including the Greeneville location.

Mr. Miller allegedly "embezzled and misapplied" funds from
depositors "who were not aware of the defendant's action and did
not authorize it," the plea agreement states. One of the clients
was a church, according to the filing.

Mr. Miller entered a plea by information, which is an agreement
with the government to bypass grand jury proceedings and plead
guilty to the felony charges in federal court.


FSL MANAGEMENT: 6th Cir. Affirms "Whitlock" Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Danny Julian Boggs of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit, affirmed the decision of the district court approving
class certification and class action settlement in the case
captioned, WILLIAM WHITLOCK; DAVID SKYRM; KRISTIN MOORE; HOLLY
GOODMAN; GARY MUNCY; MICHAEL BROWN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FSL
MANAGEMENT, LLC.; ENTERTAINMENT CONCEPTS INVESTORS SERVICES, LLC;
CRDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC.; ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING
SERVICES, LLC.; FSH MANAGEMENT, LLC., Defendants-Appellants, Case
No. 16-5086 (6th Cir.).

In 2010, plaintiffs William Whitlock, David Skyrm, James
Middleton, and Kristin Moore brought suit in Kentucky state court
against the defendants, FSL Management, LLC, Entertainment
Concepts Investors, LLC, and Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC. The
plaintiffs were former employees of various establishments that
operate in "Fourth Street Live," an entertainment district located
in downtown Louisville, KY that was managed by the defendants. The
plaintiffs individually alleged violations of the Kentucky Wage
and Hour Act, KRS Section 337.385, against the defendants for
their policies regarding off-the-clock work and mandatory tip-
pooling.

Citing proper diversity jurisdiction, defendants removed the
action to federal court, whereupon the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include an additional defendant and to seek relief as
a class. The court granted leave for the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint, and the litigation proceeded as a class-action suit. In
2012, the district court granted class certification to the
plaintiffs, finding that they had both met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and fell within one of the enumerated subcategories of
Rule 23(b).

In May 2014, the parties reached an agreement as to the financial
component of the settlement. It would take them almost another
year, however, until the parties could reach an agreement
regarding the settlement's non-monetary terms. The defendants
filed a motion with the district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c)(1)(C), to decertify the class based on the rule and the
Kentucky Court of Appeals decision in McCann. The plaintiffs urged
the district court to maintain certification and grant final
approval to the proposed class settlement.

On December 22, 2015, the district court filed a memorandum
opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to decertify the
class, and granting final approval of the plaintiffs' proposed
class action settlement. In its opinion, the district court
concluded that, regardless of the present meaning of KRS Sec.
337.385,1 it was bound to maintain class certification and enforce
the settlement agreement as "a binding contract under Kentucky
law."

On appeal, defendants-appellants, who were parties to the
settlement, challenge both of these determinations, arguing that
because the underlying Kentucky state-law cause of action does not
support class relief, the district court was required to reject
the settlement and decertify the class.

In his Opinion dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FNJMGG from Leagle.com, Judge Boggs held that
Defendants failed to show that their proposed meaning of KRS
Section 337.385(2) operates to prevent the plaintiffs from
satisfying Rule 23's certification requirements. Therefore, to the
extent that the district court concluded that continued
certification of the class was proper under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it did not abuse its discretion.

                           *     *     *

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed approval of a class action
settlement agreement, holding that "a post-settlement change in
the law does not alter the binding nature of the parties'
settlement agreement, nor does it violate Rule 23 . . .  or the
Rules Enabling Act."

The plaintiffs brought a class action against their former
employers, alleging violations of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
(KWHA). After the district court certified a class, the parties
reached a class-wide settlement and informed the court that they
would be filing formal settlement documents.

Before filing those documents, however, the defendants discovered
a recent decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which held
that the KWHA could not support class action claims. The
defendants moved to decertify the class, arguing that, based on
the Kentucky appellate decision: (1) certification violated the
terms of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); (2) certification violated the
Rules Enabling Act because it modified the scope of the state
substantive right defined by the KWHA; and (3) "approval of the
proposed settlement violated Rule 23(e)(2)'s 'fairness'
requirement because the proposed settlement contravened Kentucky
public policy."  The plaintiffs argued in favor of maintaining
certification and for final approval of the settlement. The
district court denied the defendants' motion and granted final
approval of the class settlement. The defendants appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding
that the plaintiffs "failed to make any argument explaining why
the prohibition against class-action litigation in [the KWHA]
disturbs any of the class-certification requirements . . . "
Further, the court determined that certification did not violate
the certification terms of Rule 23, which was "designed to 'focus
court attention on whether a proposed class has sufficient unity
so that absent members can fairly be bound by decisions of class
representatives.'" The court reasoned that because certification
was challenged by the defendants, "who were fairly represented
throughout the class-action litigation process," the impetus of
Rule 23 was not implicated.

The Sixth Circuit also found that certification did not violate
the Rules Enabling Act because "certification of the settlement
class [did] not amount to a finding that the plaintiffs [were]
actually entitled to relief under substantive state law, [so] it
cannot be the case that certification acts to 'abridge, enlarge,
or modify any substantive right created by state law.'"
Addressing the defendants' 23(e) argument, the court reiterated
that Rule 23 was designed to protect unnamed class members, not
parties to a settlement, and disregarded the defendants' attempt
to liken settlement agreements to consent decrees. The court
explained that settlements are akin to contracts, which are
voluntary and binding and will not be revisited merely because
"hindsight reveals that [a party's] decision was, given later
changes in the law, probably wrong."

FSL Management, LLC, et al. are represented by Clark C. Johnson,
Esq. -- cjohnson@stites.com -- Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq. --
cmctighe@stites.com -- and Jeffrey S. Moad, Esq. --
jmoad@stites.com -- STITES & HARBISON PLLC

William Whitlock, et al. are represented by Michele D. Henry, Esq.
-- mhenry@craighenrylaw.com -- CRAIG HENRY PLC


FULTON FRIEDMAN: Court Says Asset Acceptance Liable in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment on the measure of class damages and
denied Asset Acceptance's cross-motion on the same issue in the
case captioned, MARY T. JANETOS, ERIK KING, PAMELA FUJIOKA,
IGNACIO BERNAVE, Plaintiffs, v. FULTON FRIEDMAN & GULLACE, LLP,
AND ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12 C 1473 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) arising from a confusing language in the
form debt collection letters they received from Defendant Fulton
Friedman & Gullace.  On appeal of entry of summary judgment for
defendants, the Seventh Circuit held that Fulton's failure to make
mandated disclosures violated the FDCPA as a matter of law. The
Seventh Circuit also held that Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, as
a debt collector, could not escape liability for Fulton's actions
taken on its behalf.  Specifically, the court held that "A debt
collector should not be able to avoid liability for unlawful debt
collection practices simply by contracting with another company to
do what the law does not allow it to do directly." The case was
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the rulings.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argue that all liable debt collectors
must be held separately to the penalties set forth in the
statutory damages provision. Since Asset Acceptance is a liable
debt collector, the plaintiffs argue, the Court may award
additional damages to unnamed class members taking Asset
Acceptance's net worth into account.

In its cross motion, Asset Acceptance relies on traditional tort
rules regarding vicariously liable parties to argue that its
liability for class damages is coextensive with, but no greater
than Fulton's liability under the statute, which is zero given
Fulton's insolvency. In support, Asset Acceptance directs the
Court to Section 13 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which
provides that "a person whose liability is imputed based on the
tortious acts of another is liable for the entire share of
responsibility assigned to the other."

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 15, 2016
available at https://is.gd/r2r2Df from Leagle.com, Judge Durkin
held that (1) as a debt collector, Asset Acceptance's failure to
ensure that Fulton adhered to the FDCPA -- a law to which Asset
Acceptance is itself bound -- was sufficient to impose liability.
If Asset Acceptance is liable for a violation of the Act, it is
accountable for class damages under Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(B)(ii); (2)
it is fair and consistent with the Act to require a debt collector
who is independently obliged to comply with the Act to monitor the
actions of those it enlists to collect debts on its behalf; and
(3) the net worth of Asset Acceptance, a liable debt collector in
its own right, is relevant to a determination of class damages.

Erik King, et al. are represented by:

      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 739-4200

Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP is represented by Jack T. Riley,
Esq. -- rileyj@jbltd.com -- and Alexandria Lyubov Bell, Esq. --
bella@jbltd.com -- JOHNSON & BELL LTD

Fulton is also represented by:

      Bradley M. Sayad, Esq.
      THE SAYAD LAW GROUP, LTD
      5 East Van Buren Street, Suite 214
      Joliet, IL 60432-4224
      Tel: (312) 894-4625

Asset Acceptance, LLC is represented by Theodore Wilson Seitz,
Esq. -- tseitz@dykema.com -- Amy R. Jonker, Esq. --
ajonker@dykema.com -- Heather L. Kramer, Esq. --
hkramer@dykema.com -- and Robert M. Horwitz, Esq. --
rhorwitz@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC -- Zafreen Jamaluddin
Husain, Esq. -- zhusain@offitkurman.com -- OFFIT KURMAN PA


GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against General Cable Corporation ("General
Cable" or the "Company") (NYSE:BGC) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of General Cable between February 23,
2012 and February 10, 2016 (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose that:
(i) General Cable paid millions of dollars in bribes to government
officials in foreign countries, including Angola, Bangladesh,
China, Egypt, Indonesia, India, and Thailand, in order to secure
business; (ii) the foregoing conduct was in violation of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA"); (iii) General Cable's
revenues were therefore in part the product of illegal conduct,
and, as such, subject to disgorgement and unlikely to be
sustainable; and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known,
would subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny and
financial penalties.

On September 22, 2014, the Company disclosed that it was reviewing
"payment practices," "the use of agents," and "the manner in which
the payments were reflected on our books and records" in
connection with the Company's operations in Portugal, Angola,
Thailand, and India.  On this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell $0.93 per share, or 4.7%, to close at $18.96 on September 22,
2014.  Subsequently, on February 10, 2016, the Company reported
that it had increased a disgorgement accrual for a potential FCPA
settlement to $33 million after identifying "certain other
transactions that may raise concerns."  On this news, shares of
the Company's stock fell an additional $3.05 per share, or 31.6%,
to close at $6.60 on February 11, 2016.

Finally, on December 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported
that General Cable had entered into a non-prosecution agreement
with the U.S. Department of Justice and "agreed to pay $75.8
million to settle allegations it paid bribes across Africa and
Asia and . . . agreed to an additional $6.5 million penalty to
settle accounting-related violations."  The article further
reported that the Company's subsidiaries, "over a period of a
dozen years, paid about $13 million to third-party agents and
distributors," who in turn "paid bribes to government officials in
Angola, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Thailand to get business
in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 6, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settles Service Technicians' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that General
Electric has agreed to a $9.5 million settlement of a wage-and-
hour class action by service technicians for the company who
alleged they were routinely required to perform certain tasks off
the clock.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams held a hearing on the motion
for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on Jan. 3, but
did not immediately issue a ruling.  That followed the plaintiffs'
Dec. 28 motion for preliminary approval and class certification in
the case, Maddy v. General Electric.  The settlement was reached
following a Nov. 29 mediation with Diane Welsh, a former U.S.
magistrate judge who is with JAMS in Philadelphia.

The settlement resolves two consolidated actions, one from the
District of New Jersey and the other from the Southern District of
Florida.  The plaintiffs asserted that GE violated wage-and-hour
laws by its policy and practice of not paying for computer work
and driving to jobs, and by requiring workers to meet certain
productivity standards that allegedly discouraged them from
reporting that they did not take a meal break.

The settlement calls for one-third of the settlement fund, or
$3.16 million, to pay attorney fees for class counsel.

The settlement also provides that class members who opted in to
the litigation are to receive $1,500 each.  Class members who did
not opt in are set to receive $750 each under the terms of the
agreement.  In addition, class members will be awarded points
based on how many weeks they worked.  The value of the points
would be determined by the amount of the settlement fund remaining
after other required payments are made.

GE provides the technicians with company vans and laptop
computers.  The technicians park the vans outside their homes at
night and are generally paid from the time they arrive at their
first call to the time they leave the last call.  Technicians said
in the suit they begin each day by putting their computer in the
van and logging in to get their list of calls for the day. Their
preshift routine also includes making sure they have necessary
parts for the day's service calls and contacting the first
customer by phone to ensure they are at home.  Plaintiffs also
claim they often work though lunch in order to meet productivity
goals, even though a 30-minute lunch period is automatically
deducted from their pay.

Plaintiffs submitted declarations from service technicians who
said booting up and logging in to the computer takes 10 to 15
minutes and checking call lists, reading emails and contacting the
first customer takes another 10 to 15 minutes.

At the end of each shift, the suit claims, technicians perform
additional off-the-clock duties, including using their computers
to check the next day's calls, answering emails and ordering
parts, according to plaintiffs.  Other off-the-clock duties
include accepting and organizing shipments of parts and taking
their vehicles for maintenance, they claim.

According to the complaint, some workers perform such tasks
outside of paid work hours because they are required to meet
certain revenue-per-day goals ranging from $700 to $815, and
failure to meet those goals can result in termination.

Richard Swartz -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- and Justin Swidler -
- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- of Swartz Swidler in Cherry Hill
represented the class members.  Mr. Swartz declined to comment on
the settlement.

Rachel Satinsky -- rsatinsky@littler.com -- and Nina Markey --
nmarkey@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson in Philadelphia,
representing GE, did not return calls.


GERMANY: Two Indigenous Groups File Class Action Over Genocide
--------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that representatives of two indigenous groups have
filed a class action suit in New York against Germany seeking
reparations for a genocide of their peoples by German colonial
rulers over a century ago in what is now Namibia.

The suit filed by the Ovaherero and Nama people on Jan. 5 in
New York also demands that their representatives be included in
negotiations between Germany and Namibia on the issue.

The two countries have been in talks about a joint declaration on
the 1904-05 massacres, although Germany has repeatedly refused to
acknowledge that a genocide occurred or to pay reparations.

The plaintiffs said they were bringing the class action suit "on
behalf of all Ovaherero and Nama worldwide, seeking reparations
and compensation for the genocide" suffered at the hands of the
German colonial authorities.

They said they were also seeking a declaration of their right "to
be included in any negotiation between Germany and Namibia" and
that no settlements can be reached unless they are among the
signatories.

The dispute harkens back to a period in the late 19th and early
20th century when South West Africa, now known as Namibia, was a
German colony.

The suit alleges that from 1885 to 1903 about a quarter of
Ovaherero and Nama lands -- thousands of square miles -- was taken
without compensation by German settlers with the explicit consent
of German colonial authorities.

It also claims that German colonial authorities turned a blind eye
to rapes by colonists of Ovaherero and Nama women and girls, and
the use of forced labour.

Tensions boiled over in early 1904 when the Ovaherero rose up,
followed by the Nama, in an insurrection crushed by German
imperial troops.

The suit alleges that as many 100,000 Ovaherero and Nama people
died in a campaign of annihilation led by German General Lothar
von Trotha.

The plaintiffs include Vekuii Rukoro, identified as the paramount
chief of the Ovaherero people, David Frederick, chief and chairman
of the Nama Traditional Authorities Association, and the non-
profit Association of the Ovaherero Genocide in the USA, Inc.


GOLDEN PONDS: Mother, Son Sue Over Foodborne Illness
----------------------------------------------------
Steve Orr at Democrat & Chronicle reports that a mother and son
who were among 260 people sickened after dining at Golden Ponds on
Thanksgiving Day have filed suit against the Greek restaurant.

Natalie Woods and her adult son, Connor Wynn, both of Webster, say
they experienced severe gastrointestinal symptoms after their
extended family ate at the jam-packed restaurant on Nov. 24.

Woods, who was diagnosed with an inflamed and infected colon, said
her prolonged bout with debilitating cramps and bloody diarrhea
was "awful."

"Somebody needs to be accountable for what happened. I was sick
for 3-1/2 or 4 weeks. I started feeling better a few days before
Christmas," she said.

Public health officials determined that a foodborne pathogen, a
bacteria known as Clostridium perfringens, was responsible for the
mass illness. The case is now considered the largest known
outbreak of foodborne illness in the Rochester area.

The toxic bacteria multiplied in food that had been kept at unsafe
temperatures and sat at buffet tables for an extended period of
time, the investigation by the Monroe County and New York state
health departments found. Gravy was the most likely culprit, they
said.

             Source of Golden Ponds illnesses? Gravy

Four Golden Ponds patrons were hospitalized, though all recovered,
according to county health officials. No deaths were reported.

The suit, filed in state Supreme Court in Rochester, likely is the
first of many legal actions that will be brought against the
restaurant and party house on Long Pond Road. Paul Nunes, a
Rochester lawyer who is co-counsel on the case, said lawyers have
already heard from several dozen patrons who fell ill after eating
there on Thanksgiving.

"A very similar Clostridium perfringens outbreak caused three
deaths within the past couple months. This is not a matter to be
taken lightly," Nunes said. "I don't take any pleasure in bringing
these actions. I think of it as a public service. If there are no
consequences for this, you'll see this again."

The triple-fatal case to which he referred occurred at a
Thanksgiving luncheon in November sponsored by a church in
Antioch, California. Twenty-two others were sickened.

Golden Ponds was closed by county health officials after an
inspection conducted Nov. 25 found numerous problems, including
three critical violations for things that could have affected food
safety.

The restaurant and banquet center, which had served as many as
1,100 people on Thanksgiving, reopened Dec. 27 after a
reinspection by the county found the problems had been resolved.

Golden Ponds owner Ralph Rinaudo said that business has been
"really tough" since he reopened. "We have to build people's
confidence up to come back and try us. Right now, they're not
coming back. We hope that people do."

Rinaudo, who has owned the restaurant and party house for 33
years, said he did not know about the lawsuit, and did not yet
know whether his insurance company would assist with his legal
defense.

"Now we'll see what it's going to boil down to," he said. "It's
tough to operate and handle a lawsuit on top of that. I'm just
trying to do the best I can."

Nunes has been involved in numerous foodborne safety lawsuits
locally. He is partnering on this case, as he has with others,
with Bill Marler of Seattle, whom Nunes described as the nation's
leading foodborne illness litigator.

Nunes said they either will amend the suit filed to add more
plaintiffs, or file separate lawsuits on their behalf. He does not
know if lawyers will seek class-action status for the case, and
said that people who fell sick at Golden Ponds should contact him
now if they wish to be involved in the legal action.

The mother-and-son plaintiffs in the initial filing both developed
stomach pain, cramping and diarrhea early Nov. 25, the day after
they'd eaten turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy and other foods at
Golden Ponds, according to the complaint filed.

Wynn's symptoms subsided after two days, but his mother had to
consult a physician twice, undergo a CT scan and take two types of
antibiotics. She missed three days of work, Nunes said.

"She was a very sick lady," he said.

Woods said she dined with seven relatives and friends, but only
she and her son got sick. She remembers the two of them scraping
the last of the gravy from a serving dish at the buffet, and now
wonders if that is where they took up the pathogen.

Woods said she has gone out to eat since Thanksgiving, but
certainly not to Golden Ponds and not to anyplace she didn't know
and trust. "Yeah, I am leery," she said.

The lawsuit accuses Golden Ponds of negligently serving food that
contained a deadly pathogen and was prepared and served in
violation of food safety laws. The suit seeks unspecified damages
for pain and suffering and to cover medical and other expenses.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces "Branch" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company. The case is titled as Tiffanie Branch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Government Employees Insurance Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01010-REP (E.D. Va., Dec. 30, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne.

Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It is
the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State
Farm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Camille Allan Crandall, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591 0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  ccrandall@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


GROVETOWN CITY, GA: Settles Water Utility Rate Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abbigail Lennon, writing for The Columbia County, reports that
Grovetown city officials OK'd a final offer to settle a class
action lawsuit out of court on Jan. 4 for more than $1 million,
after leaders said that they could not have challenged the
accusations at trial.

Grovetown Mayor Gary Jones said the lawsuit claimed that the city
had charged higher water utility rates to cover up embezzlement by
a city employee.  Those allegations are the center of an ongoing
federal investigation launched in March.

"It is of my opinion that theft did occur and large amounts of
money was taken and was embezzled and it was in water charges and
we couldn't have won in court," Mayor Jones said.

The city agreed to pay $750,000 in the next 10 days and an
additional $62,500 per month for the remainder of 2017, for a
total of $1.5 million, according to a Facebook post from
Mayor Jones.

After attorney fees are paid along with the plaintiffs,
Alan Transou and business owner Deena Youngblood, the remaining
total will be placed in a trust fund and redeemed to residents,
Jones said, while stressing the fact that amounts "will not be
astronomical."

Residents will be reimbursed via vouchers or credits by an
administrator of the trust fund.

The council is expected to have a completed list of households
affected and what each will be due at the city's regularly
scheduled council meeting on Jan. 9.

Mayor Jones added that residents will receive only a small portion
each in relation to the settlement itself due to the more than
5,000 residents the money will be split among.

The settlement, while unfortunate, was the right thing to do,
Jones said. Part of the money to pay for the settlement will come
out of the city's general fund and the rest will come out of
insurance, he said.

"We are not going to raise water rates and we aren't going to
raise sewer rates. No. 1, it's not the right thing to do, and No.
2, we can't raise them; it's part of the lawsuit agreement," Mayor
Jones said.  "We have money in reserve, so we were able to utilize
that to take care of a majority of this.  Hopefully insurance will
be able to recoup up to $500,000 of it."

Mayor Jones said the forensic investigation is still ongoing and
he expects to see a conclusion by the end of January.

"I certainly want to move forward in a progressive fashion," Jones
said of the forensic investigation.  "But we don't know how deep
this stuff goes still.  We are still under active criminal
investigation.  Things are still being found almost daily that we
were unaware of."


HANNIBAL, MO: Court Grants Redflex Motion for Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in
part Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings  in the case captioned, JACOB BLAIR, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:15CV00061 ERW (E.D. Mo.).

On May 18, 2007, Plaintiffs Jacob Blair and Sarah Blair entered
into a contract for Redflex to install and operate a red light
camera system in Hannibal. In December 2011, Plaintiff Joseph
Blair received a ticket as a result of the red light camera
system, was issued a fine, and paid the fine. At the end of 2012,
or beginning of 2013, Plaintiff Sarah Blair received a ticket as a
result of the red light camera system, was issued a fine, and paid
the fine. Defendants shared revenue of approximately $500,000
annually since 2007, a sum greater than the cost of the program.

Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on August 25, 2015,
against the City of Hannibal, Redflex and Does 1 through 24,
alleging the city's red light camera program is unconstitutional.
On November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
against Defendants asserting the following eight counts: (1)
Declaratory Judgment and Injunction pursuant to Missouri Revised
Statute Section 527.010 et seq; (2) Violation of Plaintiffs'
Constitutional Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution and Article I Section 10 of the
Missouri Constitution; (3) Unjust Enrichment, (4) Abuse of
Process; (5) Civil Conspiracy; (6) Aiding and Abetting against
Redflex; (7) Damages for Violation of Missouri Revised Statute
Section 484.010, et seq, against Redflex; and (8) Money Had and
Received. Counts II through VIII against Redflex, and all counts
against Hannibal were dismissed when the Court granted previous
motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants.

On July 27, 2016, several of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the court based solely on the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

In the motion, Redflex asserts Count I must be dismissed because
Plaintiffs' opportunity to appear in municipal court and challenge
Hannibal's ordinance and procedures provides a complete, adequate
remedy at law. Plaintiffs argue there was never an opportunity to
dispute Redflex's involvement at a municipal hearing because
Redflex would not have been a party to the hearing.

In his Memorandum and Order dated December 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/z2EEd8 from Leagle.com, Judge Webber concluded that
the court lacks jurisdiction over the action under CAFA because
plaintiffs' class action solely involves claims that fall within
the internal affairs and securities exceptions to CAFA.

Jacob Blair and Sarah Blair are represented by Nathan D. Sturycz,
Esq. -- n.sturycz@mainstreet.ca -- MAIN STREET LAW, LLP

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is represented by JoAnn Tracy
Sandifer, Esq. -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com
-- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP


HERTZ CORP: Court Trims Claims in "Spotswood" Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William M. Nickerson of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint except Count I in the case
captioned, ROBERT SPOTSWOOD, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No.
WMN-16-1200 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff brought the action challenging certain charges that
Defendant assessed against him after the car he had rented from
Defendant was damaged in a minor accident. Plaintiff, a resident
of Alabama, rented a car from Defendant at the Baltimore
Washington International Airport on July 3, 2013. Plaintiff is a
member of Defendant's Gold Plus Rewards Program and when he
enrolled in that program he agreed to certain terms and conditions
that would govern future rentals. Those terms and conditions were
set out in a 40-plus page Rental Terms Agreement booklet
(Agreement).

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in a minor parking lot
accident which resulted in some minor damage to Defendant's
vehicle. Because Plaintiff had declined Defendant's loss damage
insurance, the claim for this accident was submitted to American
Express which provided car rental insurance through Plaintiff's
credit card program. American Express agreed to pay and has paid
for all of the Repairs and for one half of the Loss of Use, but
has declined payment for the Administrative or Diminishment of
Value Fees. Defendant takes the position that Plaintiff is
responsible for the fees unpaid by American Express, which amount
to $378.66.

Plaintiff initially filed the suit as a putative class action in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, on April 6, 2015.
Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey and then filed a motion to have the
case transferred to this Court. That motion was granted on October
27, 2015. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss some of the claims
asserted against it in the Complaint. Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint challenging the Loss of Use, Administrative, and
Diminishment of Value fees. He observes that nowhere in the
Agreement is there an expressed allowance for any Diminishment of
Value fee.

Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff brings the following
claims in the First Amended Complaint: Count I (Breach of
Contract), Count II (Violations of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act), Count III (Injunctive Relief), Count IV
(Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Common Law), Count V (Unjust
Enrichment), and Count VI (Negligent Misrepresentation). Plaintiff
proposes a class consisting of all persons and entities that have
rented vehicles from Defendants in the 6 years prior to the
original filing of this action and who were charged a Diminishment
of Value fee, a Loss of Use fee, and/or an Administrative fee for
damage and/or loss by Defendant. As a subclass, Plaintiff proposes
a similarly defined group of persons and entities who rented their
vehicles in Maryland.

Hertz seeks to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety
arguing that there was no breach of contract because both the
Agreement and Maryland common law permit the recovery of these
challenged fees. For the same reasons, Defendant argues that the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claim fails because the
challenged fees were fully disclosed. As for the unjust enrichment
and negligent misrepresentation claims, Defendant asserts that
those claims should be dismissed because these tort claims cannot
be brought where the parties' relationship is governed by a
contract. Finally Defendant suggests that claims for injunctive
relief asserted in Counts III and IV should be dismissed because
injunctive relief is a remedy and not an independent cause of
action. As to that last argument, Plaintiff concedes that Counts
III and IV should be withdrawn as separate counts.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/bYNgG0 from Leagle.com, Judge Nickerson granted
Defendant's motion as to all but Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim asserted in Count I of the First Amended Complaint because
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails for the additional
reason that Plaintiff does not claim that he has paid the charges
assessed against him. Because Plaintiff has declined to make the
challenged payments to Defendant, there has been no benefit from
Plaintiff conferred on or retained by Defendant, inequitably or
otherwise.

Robert Spotswood is represented by Maureen V. Abbey, Esq. --
maureen@hgdlawfirm.com -- and Taylor Bartlett, Esq. --
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC

Hertz Corporation is represented by John F. Ward, Jr., Esq. --
jward@jenner.com -- Mark P. Gaber, Esq. -- mgaber@jenner.com --
and -- Paul March Smith, Esq. -- psmith@jenner.com -- JENNER AND
BLOCK LLP


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Court Tosses Retirees' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline C Rea, Esq. -- mrea@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a
federal district court in Ohio dismissed retirees' claims for
lifetime healthcare benefits from Honeywell.  Honeywell provided
healthcare benefits to plaintiffs through a series of collective
bargaining agreements and, although it continued to do so for
several years after the final CBA expired, Honeywell eventually
notified plaintiffs that it would terminate contributions toward
their healthcare benefits.

Applying the principles set forth in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v.
Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015) and the Sixth Circuit's subsequent
decision in Gallo v. Moen, Inc., 813 F.3d 265 (6th Cir. 2016), the
district court held that plaintiffs' healthcare benefits did not
vest because the CBAs were for three-year terms and did not
expressly state that the healthcare benefits vested, whereas the
CBAs did expressly vest pension benefits for life.  Although,
unlike in Gallo, there was no reservation-of-rights clause, the
court held that such a clause was not required to find that the
CBAs unambiguously did not provide lifetime health benefits to
plaintiffs.

The case is Watkins v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., No. 16-1925, 2016 WL
7325161 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2016).


ITT EDUCATION: Group of Former Students File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Kieler, writing for Consumerist, reports that a group of
former students who were stranded in September by the sudden
closure of all ITT Tech campuses, have filed a lawsuit against
parent company ITT Education Services in the hopes of providing
thousands of their fellow students with a portion of the now-
defunct school's assets.

According to the lawsuit -- which features testimonials from 521
former students -- ITT Tech "engaged in systematic and sustained
activities to conceal" that it had engaged in misleading
recruitment practices and other illegal tactics to enroll
students.

In all, the suit claims that students were the real creditors of
ITT Tech, contributing more than $7.3 billion to the school
through federal and private student loans, and are entitled to
representation in the bankruptcy proceedings.

"ITT's revenue came almost entirely from tuition, and the vast
majority of that tuition was paid through federal financial aid
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education," the
suit claims.

Because the students make far less than they were promised when
attending the school, they are more likely to default on these
loan obligations, according to the lawsuit.  In fact, the suit
claims that default rates on those loans can be as high as 80%.

"Unlike ITT's obligations, students' debts cannot be discharged
easily in bankruptcy," the lawsuit states.  "ITT students are the
true creditors of ITT.  They seek recognition as creditors in this
bankruptcy, a fair apportionment of the remaining estate, and an
adjudication of their claims that will clear the path to loan
cancellation in collateral proceedings."

Students assert in the lawsuit that they were duped by schools
administrators into taking out costly student loans in order to
attend the college.

"When I first met with the recruiter from ITT he presented me with
charts with pay scales of what was stated as starting salaries of
entry-level construction managers starting at $80,000 a year," one
student claims.  "The recruiter made it sound like a sure thing
and had convinced me that enrolling there was a great investment
in my future."

In other cases, students recalled being forced to sign papers or
having their signatures forged by the administrators that allowed
the school to take out high-inters loans in their name.

"The only financial aid that I applied for was the FAFSA," one
student said.  "[ITT] forged my signature on private loans that
I'm just learning about with Peaks Private loans.  I never
received any documentation about the loans that was taken out, nor
[was] anything explained to me about the loans."

"I was told that all my loans were the same and that they were all
government loans," another student recalls.  "I did not find out I
had private loans until after I had graduated and defaulted on
them."

With the lawsuit, the students are seeking a judgment that
declares that ITT committed violations of consumer protection
laws, an order prohibiting ITT from collecting on all private
student loans administered by the company, and compensatory
damages in an undisclosed amount.


J.D. MELLBERG: Faces "Portillo" Suit in C.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.D. Mellberg
Financial of Texas, LLC. The case is entitled as Mynor F.
Portillo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.D. Mellberg Financial of Texas, LLC,
an Arizona limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09663 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
30, 2016).

J.D. Mellberg Financial offers retirement planning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


JAY PEAK: Investors Want Court to Certify Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Keays, writing for VTDigger, reports that a group of
investors is asking a federal judge to officially declare the
plaintiffs' fraud lawsuit against the Jay Peak resort developers a
class action.

The filing by an attorney on behalf of the investors was made in
U.S. District Court in Miami, the city where Jay Peak owner
Ariel Quiros lives and where many of his businesses are located.

"This case is ideally suited for class certification,"
Thomas Ronzetti, the lawyer for the group of investors, wrote in
the recent motion asking the judge to deem the case a class
action.  "The proposed class is comprised of investors who reside
in Europe, Asia, India, the Middle East, Australia, and the
Americas, including the United States, where investors reside in
more than 40 different states."

The lead plaintiff in the case is Alexander Daccache, of Brazil.
He put up $500,000 in 2010 through the federal EB-5 immigrant
investor program for a project headed by Quiros and Bill Stenger,
former Jay Peak president and CEO.  Mr. Daccache invested in the
Penthouse Suites project, which is part of The Hotel Jay.

In addition to projects at the Jay Peak resort, Messrs. Stenger
and Quiros raised money over an eight-year span for developments
in East Burke and Newport, other Northeast Kingdom communities.

The recent filing asks the judge to certify as a class the 837
foreign investors who put money into projects led by Messr. Quiros
and Stenger. Each investor put up $500,000 through the
EB-5 program, for a total of more than $400 million. If their
$500,000 investment created 10 jobs, an investor was then eligible
for permanent U.S. residency.

Defendants in the Daccache lawsuit are Mr. Quiros, Mr. Stenger,
People's United Bank, the financial firm Raymond James, and
Joel Burstein, a branch manager of Raymond James in Coral Gables,
Florida, where Mr. Quiros did business.

Federal and state lawsuits brought in April accuse Messrs. Stenger
and Quiros of misusing $200 million of the money raised through
the EB-5 program, including using funds set aside for specific
projects to fund work on earlier projects.  The lawsuits allege
Mr. Quiros used an additional $50 million for personal expenses.
Mr. Stenger reached a settlement with the SEC.

Specifically, according to the recent filing in the Daccache case,
the judge should certify the following class: "All persons who
invested in the Jay Peak and Q Burke Limited Partnerships.
Excluded from this class are defendants, their affiliates,
subsidiaries, agents, board members, directors, officers, and/or
employees."

Mr. Ronzetti argues that a class-action lawsuit is appropriate in
part because allegations from various plaintiffs are similar even
though they may have invested in different projects.

"The key issues at trial will be whether Quiros and Stenger
misused and commingled investor funds, and whether People's Bank,
Burstein, and Raymond James aided and abetted Quiros and Stenger
and breached duties owed to investors," the filing states. "Given
that focus, the evidence that plaintiffs will offer to prove their
claims will be common to all class members."

Mr. Ronzetti added that a class-action certification would
streamline the litigation process, including making it easier on
the courts and the attorneys involved.  And, he wrote, the
defendants are seeking similar outcomes.

"The investors have a common interest in recovering their damages
from defendants, and they will share in any recovery in proportion
to the amount of their principal loss," the filing states.

A separate case filed by investors is also playing out in federal
court in Miami. In that lawsuit, 31 Chinese investors also allege
fraud against almost the same defendants, minus Mr. Stenger.  He
isn't named, according to the attorney who made the filing,
because Mr. Stenger doesn't appear to have money that could help
the investors recoup their losses.

Curtis Carlson, the Florida attorney representing the 31 Chinese
investors, said on Jan. 3 he isn't worried about a class-action
lawsuit taking away his clients.  He said what typically happens
is all members of a projected class, in this case 837 investors,
are sent notices alerting them of the opportunity to opt out or
opt in.

"All of my people will opt out," he said.

Mr. Ronzetti could not be reached on Jan. 3 for comment.  Court
filings don't state the number of investors who have joined the
Daccache lawsuit.

Messrs. Stenger and Quiros led projects ranging from new hotels at
Jay Peak and Burke Mountain ski areas to a proposed $110 million
biomedical center in Newport that never materialized.

The lawsuit alleges that Quiros "orchestrated" fraud and that
Mr. Stenger and Mr. Burstein, Quiros' former son-in-law, as the
former branch manager for Raymond James, "enabled" the alleged
fraud.

In addition, according to the lawsuit, Mr. Stenger was aware he
had a fiduciary duty to investors and "facilitated" transfers of
investor money from a People's United Bank account to Raymond
James accounts that Mr. Quiros had sole authority over.

All the defendants have submitted filings denying the allegations.


JC PENNEY: KSF Investigates Alleged False Reference Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq.,
a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), on
Jan. 3 disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into J.C.
Penney Company, Inc. (NYSE: JCP).

On December 8, 2016, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office filed
a lawsuit against the principal operating subsidiary of J.C.
Penney Company, Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.  The lawsuit
alleges that J.C. Penney has continued to engage in an unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent business practice commonly referred to as
"false reference pricing."  Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that,
pursuant to a settlement in a private class action approved in
2016, J.C. Penney had agreed "that any former price to which
JCPenney refers in its price comparison advertising will be the
actual, bona fide price at which the item was openly and actively
offered for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in
the recent, regular course of business, honestly and in good
faith," and further that J.C. Penney represented to the federal
district court overseeing the private class action that it had, in
fact, implemented a new price-comparison advertising policy as of
November 2015.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether J.C. Penney's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to J.C. Penney's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a holder of J.C. Penney shares since
November 2015, and would like to discuss your legal rights, you
may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-
515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr  is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


JONES WOLF: Debt Collectors Take on Lawyers in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mazzola at NJ.com reports that it's shaping up to be a
battle royale between members of some of the least popular
professions in New Jersey.

A Bergen County collections agency has filed a class action
lawsuit against five lawyers who it claims are running a
racketeering scheme targeting collections agencies. The lawsuit,
filed in December in the U.S. District Court in Trenton, claims
that the attorneys file bogus class action suits against the
collections companies, knowing that the companies will be forced
to settle the claims quickly for less than it would cost them to
go through the judiciary process.

According to the complaint, the title plaintiff, Jeffrey A.
Winters of Hackensack-based Collection Solutions, Inc., was a
victim of the alleged scheme, having settled a baseless case in
September 2016 for $12,000, far less than it would have cost the
company to fight and win a lawsuit.

The suit claims that the attorneys -- Joseph K. Jones and Benjamin
J. Wolf, of the Fairfield-based firm Jones, Wolf, & Kapasi, LLC,
Laura Mann of Law Office of Laura Mann, LLC in Riverdale, and Ari
H. Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman of Ocean Township's Marcus & Zelman,
LLC -- have been running a "Mafia style racketeering enterprise"
since 2013.

According to the company's attorney, David Hoffman, the group has
filed more than 50 federal class action lawsuits over the past two
years. On average, he said, they settle them for just attorneys'
fees, at an average of about $50,000 per case. Hoffman said he
anticipates having as many as 500 plaintiffs sign onto the class
action suit, and will seek about $50,000 in damages for each one.

The suit also alleges that the lawyers use a rotating cast of
"professional plaintiffs" to file the suits, which it says target
creditors, and any other agencies that send out collections
notices.

Those suits, Hoffman says, violate the state and federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts, or RICO Acts.

In a statement to NJ Advance Media, Meredith Kaplan Stoma, the
attorney representing Marcus and Zelman, called the accusations in
the suit "completely frivolous."

"Advocates who use the Fair Debt Collection Act to protect
consumers from overzealous debt-collectors are doing a public
service and acting within the law. It's the height of hypocrisy
for debt-collectors to claim they are the ones being harassed,"
she said.

Robert Modica, who represents Jones and Wolf, also called the suit
"frivolous." Stoma said the attorneys are asking the court to
dismiss the suit and sanction the plaintiffs.

The attorney representing Mann did not return a request for
comment.

The dispute between the two groups, Hoffman said in a phone
interview, is what he called an abuse of the legal system that he
believes is happening all over the country.

"In this case, the numbers are just astounding," Hoffman said.
Though the individual settlement amounts are relatively small, he
argues, they are masking "a large-scale scam."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Montero's Bid to Vacate Arbitration Order Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, CECILIA MONTERO and ANABEL RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 14 CV 9053 (N.D.
Ill.), Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's
motion to vacate the order compelling Anabel Rodriguez to
arbitration and Plaintiff's motion to join Rodriguez as a
plaintiff, and denied Montero's motion to file a third amended
complaint .

Montero filed the class action suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) alleging that Chase failed
to pay overtime wages at the rate required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act  (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).

On January 14, 2015, Cecilia Montero filed a first amended
complaint, which alleged the same violations of law, but added
Rodriguez as a plaintiff. Montero and Rodriguez were given leave
to file a second amended complaint on February 13, 2015, alleging
that Chase violated the IWPCA by making unauthorized deductions
from their agreed-upon wages.

Chase filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
March 2, 2015. Simultaneously, Chase moved to compel arbitration
with respect to Rodriguez, arguing that Rodriguez was subject to a
Binding Arbitration Agreement (BAA) with Chase. On May 8, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion asking the district court
to deny Chase's motion to compel arbitration arguing that Chase's
decision not to adhere to the BAA in the Hightower matter should
render Chase unable to compel individual arbitration of her claims
in the matter. On January 15, 2016, the district court entered an
order compelling arbitration of Rodriguez's claims.

Montero on September 1, 2016, asked the Court to vacate the order
entered on January 15, 2016, based upon the subsequent binding
precedent issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Lewis
v. Epic Systems Corp., 2015 WL 5330300, at *1-2 (W.D. Wis. Sept.
11, 2015), in which the court decided to follow the National Labor
Relation Board's conclusion that "an employer violates the
National Labor Relations Act by entering into individual
arbitration agreements that include a prohibition on collective
actions by employees."  Montero alternatively moved for leave to
join Rodriguez as a plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(1). On the same date, Plaintiff sought leave to file a third
amended complaint, seeking to clarify her FLSA and IMWL claims and
seeking to add a new IWPCA claim for untimely payments.

In her Order dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Ux2I6W rom Leagle.com, Judge Cox concluded that the
fact that Lewis was decided since the district court issued its
ruling simply does not rise to the level of "extraordinary
circumstances" necessary to grant a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6). As to motion for leave, the Court ruled that the
"alternative" Rule 20(a)(1) motion is nothing more than a
reiteration of the Plaintiffs' 60(b)(6) arguments.

The Court granted the motion to file a third amended complaint
finding that Montero did not unduly delay filing her request, and
Chase will not suffer undue prejudice as the result of the
amendment and that Montero has pled facts sufficient to state
claims under the FLSA and IMWL, to give Chase fair notice of the
claims, and to show the claims are plausible.

Cecilia Montero, et al. are represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD
      224 S Michigan Ave #300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312)763-6880

JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. are represented by Thomas F. Hurka,
Esq. -- thomas.hurka@morganlewis.com -- Samuel S. Shaulson, Esq.
-- sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com --  Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq. --
sarah.bouchard@morganlewis.com -- and Wonho John Lee, Esq. --
w.john.lee@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


KANE CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Abrupt Shutdown, Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Sernovitz at Washington Business Journal reports a trio
of former Kane Co. employees, including one who worked for the
Elkridge-based mover for more than 25 years, has filed a class-
action complaint stemming from the mover's abrupt shutdown and
subsequent bankruptcy.

The three are among more than 900 employees impacted when Kane
shut down Dec. 9, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege
in court documents that Kane Co. deliberately violated the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to
give 60-day advance notice.

Kane Co. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy roughly two weeks after
CEO John Kane announced plans to wind down. That was Dec. 8, the
day before the layoffs. The company filed retroactive WARN notices
Dec. 13 in Maryland, reporting 900 impacted employees in that
state, and Virginia, reporting 122 impacted employees in that
state.

John Kane could not be immediately reached for comment for this
story.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Baltimore-based Gallagher
Evelius & Jones LLP and Philadelphia-based Klehr Harrison Harvey
Branzburg LLP.


KANSAS, USA: Brown Files Appeal in Kansas Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN L. BROWN, JOANN BROWN, AND, CHARLES WILLIAM STRICKLER III,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
APPELLEES, V. KRIS KOBACH, KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY, APPELLANT, Case No. 116989 (Kan. Sup. Ct.), is
an appeal filed before the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals.

The Secretary of State's office is a filing agency. It integrates
online services and information from multiple state agencies,
including the Kansas Secretary of State.


LA FURNITURE: Sued Over Unlawful Information Capture Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Le, on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated v. La Furniture and Does 1 through 20,
Case No. BC645110 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 27, 2016), arises out
of the Defendants' pattern of unlawful and deceptive business
practices of utilizing an "Information Capture Policy" whereby
Defendant's employees request and record personal identification
information and credit card numbers from customers using credit
cards during sales transactions in Defendant's retail
establishments.

La Furniture sells furniture and home accessories within
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
      Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
      FINEMAN POLINER LLP
      155 North Riverview Drive
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
      Telephone: (714) 620-1125
      Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
      E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
              Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


LIPOCINE INC: Investor Group Named Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part the motion to
consolidate, and granted appointment of lead plaintiff, lead
counsel and liaison counsel in the case captioned, DAVID LEWIS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. LIPOCINE INC., et al., Defendants. ANTHONY
MORASSI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIPOCINE INC., et al., Defendants
(D.N.J.).

On July 1, 2016, Lewis filed a complaint against Defendants for
violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of himself
and a class consisting of individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired Lipocine securities during the Class Period. On July 6,
2016, Morassi filed a complaint against Defendants for the same or
substantially similar claims on behalf of himself and the same
class of plaintiffs. On July 7, 2016, Burleson also filed a
complaint against Defendants for the same or substantially similar
claims on behalf of himself and a class consisting of individuals
who purchased or otherwise acquired Lipocine securities between
February 27, 2015 and June 28, 2016.

Plaintiffs assert Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), as well as
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly (1) failing to
disclose deficiencies in the Company's LPCN 1021 New Drug
Application, which (2) caused Defendants' statements about the
Company's business and operations to be false and misleading
and/or lack a reasonable basis.

On June 29, 2015, the Company allegedly issued a press release
celebrating the success of its LPCN 1021, an oral testosterone
replacement therapy, Phase 3 clinical study, and announcing that
it expected to file a New Drug Application (NDA) for LPCN 1021
with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the second half of
2015. However, in June 29, 2016, the Company allegedly issued a
press release disclosing the receipt of a Complete Response Letter
from the FDA, which stated that their LPCN 1021 New Drug
Application could not be approved in its current form, due to
deficiencies in the application related to the dosing algorithm
and the label for the drug.

Plaintiffs seek to consolidate the actions together with Burleson
v. Lipocine Inc. et al., Civ. No. 16-4129. Defendants and other
plaintiffs do not oppose consolidation of these matters. On
November 21, 2016, Burleson v. Lipocine Inc. et al., Civ. No. 16-
4129, was dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure
to timely serve Defendants.

Also before the Court are three motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff and to approve lead counsel and liaison counsel,
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(the PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4 (1997), by (1) Plaintiff Grey
Burleson (Burleson) (Lewis v. Lipocine Inc. et al., Civ. No. 16-
4009, (2) Plaintiff John Redmond (Redmond) and (3) Plaintiffs
Quantum Partners, Ltd., DPC Partners, Ltd., and John William
Burke.

In his Opinion dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4j2MUe from Leagle.com, Judge Martinotti found that
consolidation of these actions is appropriate, because both cases
are based on substantially the same conduct, involve substantially
the same claims, and name the same defendants except Burleson v.
Lipocine Inc. et al., Civ. No. 16-4129 because it has been
dismissed earlier.

The Court appointed Lipocine Investor Group as the most adequate
lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for the class.

Lipocine Investor Group, et al. are represented by Bruce Daniel
Greenberg, Esq. -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC

David Lewis is represented by Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA

Lipocine Inc., et al. are represented by David A. Kotler, Esq. --
david.kotler@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP


LS HOLDINGS: Faces "Newsom" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LS Holdings Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Keisha Newsom, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LS Holdings
Group, LLC, doing business as Lendvantage, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-03120-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

LS Holdings offers access to business loans & advances for small
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


LUNDAY-THAGARD: Pichardo Accuses Violation of Calif. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Pichardo, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lunday-Thagard Company, a California
corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC645411 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide meal period, rest period,
minimum wage and overtime in violation of California Labor Law.

Defendant Lunday-Thagard Company operates an oil refinery in the
city of South Gate, California, where crude oil is refined into a
variety of different products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
   Alina B. Mazeika,Esq.
   MAHONEY LAW GROUP
   249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
   Long Beach, CA 90802
   Tel: (562) 590-5550
   Fax: (562) 590-8400
   Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
          amazeika@mahoney-law.net


MADISON COUNTY: Jan. 17 Opt-Out Deadline in Court Fees Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cousins at the Telegraph reports that people affected by a
class-action suit against former Madison County treasurer and
current county board Chairman Kurt Prenzler, and Circuit Clerk
Mark Von Nida over the cost of serving papers in small claims
court have until Jan. 17, to opt out of the suit or file an
objection.

The original suit was filed in 2013 by attorney Peter Maag.
Plaintiffs were Rickie Guthrie, Mary Blumer and Trisha Dumstorff.

The suit stems from a $10 fee charged to serve papers relating to
small-claims cases. According to a suit filed in 2013, the
Illinois Supreme Court set that fee at $8.

Von Nida said they had been trying to get rid of the case for
years.

"It just simply wasn't that big of a deal," Von Nida said. "I was
in office maybe a month or two when the lawsuit was filed. We're
glad to get it over with."

The "class" includes several hundred people going back to March
12, 2008.

According to a notice on the circuit clerk's website, while the
defendants deny the allegations, all sides reached a settlement
that was given preliminary approval in November by Associate Judge
Don Flack. The total settlement is $6,632, with $1,989.60 going to
the attorney. The rest will be paid at a maximum of $8 per
claimant.

Members of the suit wanting to object to any part of the
settlement or to opt out of the class-action suit must fill out a
form available on the Circuit Clerk's website.

Objections must be filed and served by Jan. 17. A hearing on the
settlement is set for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 21, at the Madison
County Courthouse.


MCDONALD'S: No Class Certification in Wage-Theft Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Court House News reports that a federal judge
ruled workers at eight McDonald's franchises cannot prove enough
of them knew they were working for the fast-food corporation
rather than franchisees to proceed with a wage theft class action.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the 1,200 workers class
certification under the theory of ostensible agency, where a
franchisor can be believed to be acting on behalf of the parent
company.

Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate, sued
McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014,
claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's
miscalculated their wages.

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010.

Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment back in August,
Seeborg observed that Haynes controlled hiring, firing,
discipline, wage-setting and the employees' general working
conditions. Seeborg dismissed the workers' claims against
McDonald's based on actual agency because McDonald's didn't make
direct personnel decisions.

The Haynes Partnership settled with the workers in 2015, allowing
the class to go forward on the ostensible agency claim against
McDonald's, but Seeborg ruled there isn't enough evidence to show
a common set of circumstances classwide.

"Even interpreting broadly the rule that ostensible agency may be
inferred from circumstances, plaintiffs' factual showing falls
short," he said.

Though their attorneys argued that the workers wore McDonald's
branded uniforms, received paychecks bearing the McDonald's logo,
received McDonald's orientation packets and watched McDonald's
training videos, Seeborg said some workers received different
information that led them to believe Haynes was their employer.

"These differences preclude an inference of common belief among
class members. Indeed, the record shows that some class members
understand that McDonald's does not employ them, while others do
not," Seeborg wrote.

"Here, the information that any crew member knew or should have
known varies. For example, some crew members are told at or near
the time of their hire that they were employees of Haynes and/or
that they were not employees of McDonald's," he added. "Some of
Haynes' family members tell new hires that Haynes is their
employer during new-hire orientation conducted at Haynes' offices.
Likewise, some shift managers and general managers tell crew
members that the Haynes family owns their restaurant."

Attorney Michael Rubin with Altshuler Berzon, who represents the
workers, said Seeborg's ruling may have a silver lining, as the
workers will be able to present their joint-employer theory to the
Ninth Circuit.

"We're disappointed, but in the long run it may be for the best,"
Rubin said in an interview Thursday. "The key issue in this case
has always been McDonald's liability as a joint employer.
Ostensible agency was never our principal legal theory, but it
gave us two bites at the liability apple. The consequence of
Seeborg's ruling is undoubtedly that we will get the principal
joint-employer issue adjudicated much more quickly with far less
expenditure of time and money than if we first went through a
classwide ostensible agency trial."

McDonald's attorney, Lawrence Di Nardo with Jones Day, did not
respond to a phone request for comment.


MCWANE INC: May 23 Cast Iron Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Cast Iron Soil Pipe or Fittings Directly from
Charlotte Pipe, McWane, Tyler Pipe or AB&I Foundry Between
November 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013, You Could Be Affected by a
Proposed Class Action Settlement

WHAT'S THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
There is a proposed Settlement of $30,000,000 in a class action
lawsuit called In re Cast Iron Soil Pipe and Fittings Antitrust
Litigation, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The defendants in the
lawsuit, called "Defendants" in this notice, are McWane, Inc., and
its unincorporated divisions, Tyler Pipe Company and AB&I Foundry;
Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company and Randolph Holding Company,
LLC; and the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute. This lawsuit claims
that all Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for cast iron soil pipe and
fittings ("CISP") at artificially high levels in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.  This lawsuit also claims that Charlotte
Pipe conducted an acquisition that substantially lessened
competition in the relevant CISP market in violation the federal
antitrust laws.  The Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' claims,
deny all wrongdoing, and have asserted various defenses to those
claims.  The Court hasn't made any decision on the merits of
plaintiffs' allegations.

AM I A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?
There is a Settlement Class consisting of: All persons or entities
that purchased CISP in the United States directly from any of the
Defendants, their subsidiaries, predecessors, or affiliates, from
November 1, 2006, through December 31, 2013.  Excluded from the
Settlement Class are certain companies that have already settled
their claims against Defendants or which have otherwise agreed to
exclude themselves from the Settlement, the Defendants, their
parent companies, subsidiaries, predecessors, and affiliates,
federal and state governmental entities and instrumentalities of
federal or state governments.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE AND HOW DO I GET A PAYMENT?
The Defendants have paid $30,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement
Fund").  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you may be eligible to get a
payment.  To qualify for a payment, you must complete and send in
a valid Claim Form.  Be sure to sign the Claim Form and mail it by
first-class mail postmarked no later than February 13, 2017, to:
CISP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims
Administration, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479.  If
the Court approves the Settlement, at a later date, payments from
the Settlement Fund will be distributed, on a pro rata basis based
on the amount of CISP you bought directly from Defendants, to
Settlement Class Members who submitted valid and timely claims.
There are specialized companies, which the Court has not
authorized to contact you, that may contact you and offer to fill
in and file your claim in return for a percentage of your claim's
value.  Before you contract with one of these companies, you can
always seek help from the Claims Administrator or Settlement Class
Counsel, without charge, in filing your Claim.

CAN I EXCLUDE MYSELF?
If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue Defendants
about the legal issues in this case, then you must exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class.  If you exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class, you will not get any payment from the
Settlement.  To exclude yourself, you must send a letter,
postmarked by February 13, 2017, saying that you want to be
excluded from the Settlement.  The Settlement Website has
instructions about how to exclude yourself.

HOW DO I OBJECT?
You can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
request for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards if you
are a Settlement Class Member and have not excluded yourself.  To
object, you must send a letter to the Court, postmarked by May 3,
2017.   Please see page 8 of the Notice.

WHAT IF I DO NOTHING?
If you do nothing, you will not receive payment, you will remain
in the Settlement Class, and you will be bound by the releases
regarding the claims in this case, the terms of which appear in
Paragraphs 35-38 of the Settlement Agreement.  The only way to
qualify for a payment from the Settlement is to send in a Claim
Form.

WHO REPRESENTS ME?
The Court appointed Solomon B. Cera of Cera LLP, Kit A. Pierson of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Settlement Class Counsel to represent the
Settlement Class.  If you want to be represented by your own
lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.  Settlement Class
Counsel will ask the Court to approve from the Settlement Fund an
award of 331/3% of the Settlement Fund (which is $9,999,000) for
attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement from the Settlement
Fund, not to exceed $2,000,000, for Settlement Class Counsel's
out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of
the lawsuit.  Settlement Class Counsel will also seek incentive
awards of no more than $50,000 for each of the three class
representatives.  The request for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
incentive awards will be on the Settlement Website once it is
filed with the Court.

WHEN WILL THE JUDGE DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to
approve the terms of the Settlement at 9 a.m. on May 23, 2017, at
the U.S. Courthouse, 900 Georgia Ave., Chattanooga, Tenn.   If
there are objections or comments, the Court will consider them but
may still approve the Settlement.  You may appear at the hearing,
but you are not required to do so.  The hearing may be moved to a
different date or time without notice, so periodically check this
website for any updates.

This Notice is only a summary. For more information, visit the
Settlement Website: www.cispantitrustsettlement.com


MDC TAVERN: Faces "Brooks" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Blue and Bria Brooks, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. MDC Tavern Corp., 53
Veterans Highway Inc., Mark E. Carney, Dennis Charette, Gregory
Robert Walsh, Sean McCarthy and any other related entities,
Defendants, Case No. 600162/2017 (N.Y., January 6, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for payment of all compensation in
violation of Labor Law.

The Plaintiff seeks payment of all compensation including minimum
wage compensation, all earned gratuities and tips and improper
deductions from wages, that they were deprived of -- plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant and hospitality
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
   Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
   Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
   LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
   One Old Country Road, Suite 347
   Carle Place, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550


MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: Diluted Chemo Victims to Challenge Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cross, writing for Windsor Star, reports that
Colleen Campbell intended to sit in a Windsor courtroom on
Jan. 10 and hold photos of her husband, Rick, and her sister, Joan
Braine, who both died of cancer after being treated with diluted
chemotherapy drugs.

And she's hoping many more people affected by the diluted chemo
scandal will join her, to show their opposition to the proposed
class-action settlement -- providing as little as $1,500 for each
of 1,202 diluted chemo victims in Ontario and New Brunswick --
that Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem will be asked to
approve.

"We can make a difference," the Stoney Point widow said on
Jan. 6, expressing hope that a crowd of opponents will help
convince the judge to not approve the settlement for $2.375
million, which would be divided up among the victims ($1.8
million), lawyers ($400,000), administrative costs ($75,000) and
the Ontario and New Brunswick governments ($100,000).

"It's not about the money," said Ms. Campbell, who wrote one of
the 49 notices of objection (one has since been withdrawn) to the
proposed settlement.  "Even if they stand up and say: 'We were so
wrong, we are so sorry, this will never happen again and this is
what we're putting in place,' but everyone's acting like it's not
a big deal."

She stressed the she doesn't believe the diluted chemo killed her
61-year-old husband on July 19, 2013 -- it was the cancer.  But
she believes getting diluted chemo instead of regular-strength
chemo may have shortened his life.

"If Rick lived 57 more days he would have made it to our youngest
son's wedding," said Ms. Campbell, who said she initially believed
everything that could possibly be done was done for her husband.
Receiving the letter informing her of the medication error threw
her trust in the system "out the window," she said.

Of the 290 people given the diluted drugs at Windsor Regional
Hospital in 2012 and 2013, more than 70 have since died.

An expert hired to study the under-dosing concluded there was "no
evidence of any malicious or deliberate drug-sparing dilution" by
Marchese Hospital Solutions, the firm that prepared the bags of
chemo drugs Cyclophosphamide or Gemcitabine.

He said the drugs were diluted no more than 10 and seven per cent,
respectively, and that the impact on patients, given the fact they
were often combined with other cancer-killing drugs, was small.

The absence of any proof that the under-dosing harmed patients is
why the settlement is much lower than the victims hoped for,
according to their class-action lawyers, who insist the settlement
is the best they could negotiate.

"The case law is clear, the issues on liability and the damages
for psychological injury are clear in Ontario, so we're bringing a
settlement that is, in our opinion, fair and reasonable and within
the range of reasonable for this type of incident," the victims'
lawyer Sharon Strosberg -- sharon@strosbergco.com -- said on Jan.
6.

"If others think otherwise, they can bring their objections to the
court and the court will decide if it's fair and reasonable under
the circumstances."

Seven victims have opted out of the class action, which means that
they can hire a lawyer and sue independently. One has since asked
to rescind the opt-out.  Ms. Strosberg said if the judge rejects
the settlement, the case continues.

The lawsuit alleges negligence by Marchese's parent company
Mezentco Solutions Inc.  Marchese supplied several hospitals in
Ontario and New Brunswick -- including Windsor Regional Hospital -
- with premixed intravenous chemotherapy treatment. Also named in
the lawsuit are the hospitals and Medbuy, a consortium set up by
hospitals to buy products in higher volumes.

Diluted chemo victim Louise Martens said she has thought long and
hard about what a reasonable settlement would be and concludes
each victim should receive at least 100 times the $1,500 being
proposed -- $150,000 for survivors and double that for the estates
of those who have died.

"I don't even know if that is fair, they lost their lives," said
the Windsor woman, who has helped lead the opposition to the
proposed settlement.  She's hoping on Jan. 10 the judge would
decide to send the lawyers "back to the drawing board," to hammer
out a new settlement.

She wants "way more" people than those who've filed objections to
show up on Jan. 10, including victims from outside Windsor.

"Our group here in Windsor has been very out there on Facebook,
sharing with everybody, saying: 'You don't have to be a patient,
you don't have to be a family member, you just have to be a
Canadian who believes this is an unfair settlement, to show up and
support us,'" said Ms. Martens, who has written an emotional
address she hopes to read in court.

"What our lawyers fail to grasp is the fact that we are all now
terrified," she writes, explaining patients and their families are
terrified the cancer is still there because the diluted chemo
didn't kill it.

"Tell the single mom with three small boys who has now had over
200 rounds of chemotherapy after receiving her doses of diluted
chemotherapy that her boys should be happy with $500 each," she
said.  "Might buy an Xbox but won't buy a mom."


MICHIGAN: UIA Class Action Awaits Oral Arguments
------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Vanhulle, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports
that the state's embattled unemployment agency said Jan. 6 it will
review all computer-identified claims of benefits fraud -- more
than 30,000 -- that until now have not been re-examined after
criticism from state auditors and a Michigan congressman that the
practice was highly inaccurate.

The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency said the fraud findings
occurred from 2013 to 2015, when it launched an automated system
to determine fraudulent claims.  The agency hasn't relied solely
on a computer system to identify possible fraud cases since August
2015, and now includes staff members in the review process.

News of the additional reviews comes a day after the state's
Talent Investment Agency said it will perform a top-to-bottom
restructuring of the unemployment office, which it oversees --
including reassigning its director, Sharon Moffett-Massey, and
launching a national search for her successor.

"We are being as thorough as possible in reviewing potential fraud
determinations because we want to be fair to people filing claims,
but also continue to be vigilant against fraud, which hurts
everyone," said Wanda Stokes, director of the Talent Investment
Agency, in a statement.

Bruce Noll, the talent agency's legislative liaison who is leading
the unemployment agency on an interim basis, has started the
process, Ms. Stokes said.  About 7,000 of the roughly 30,000 cases
already have been reviewed, the talent agency said on
Jan. 6.

U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak, has been one of the most
vocal critics of the agency's reliance on automated fraud
determinations.  In December, Mr. Levin released data from the
state unemployment agency, which indicated it reviewed 22,427
cases of fraud determinations out of a total 53,633 cases made by
a computer system between October 2013 and August 2015. Of those
reviewed, just 1,462 -- or slightly less than 7 percent -- were
confirmed fraud cases, Mr. Levin said.

The agency's review returned $5.4 million to more than 2,500
claimants, data show.

In a February 2016 report, Auditor General Doug Ringler found that
fraud was discovered in just 8 percent of appealed benefits
claims.

In a statement on Jan. 4, Mr. Levin said Ms. Stokes' restructuring
changes were "long overdue."

He said on Jan. 6 he was "very pleased" to hear of the planned
fraud reviews, adding: "It is important that the Talent Investment
Agency has announced a full review of all cases to ensure that
anyone wrongly accused of fraud is made whole and has their record
corrected."

More challenges ahead

Despite the additional oversight, a spotlight will continue to
shine on the unemployment agency as it tries to fix problems of
fraud and poor customer service.

A potential class-action lawsuit is awaiting oral arguments in the
Michigan Court of Appeals, alleging the state garnished wages and
seized tax refunds on behalf of tens of thousands of plaintiffs
falsely accused of benefits fraud.

And Gov. Rick Snyder has just days remaining to sign two bills on
his desk related to the agency, including one that would approve
the transfer of $10 million from a fund containing money for the
unemployment agency to the state's general fund for the fiscal
year that started Oct. 1.  Opponents of that bill say they want
him to veto it on the grounds that the money was wrongly taken
from jobless workers, citing the untested cases.

Still, Ms. Stokes' three-point reform plan -- which will make
customer service and fraud prevention priorities -- is a step
toward resolving longstanding complaints, say some business groups
and attorneys who have called attention to problems inside the
agency.

Mr. Ringler, in an April audit, found that the unemployment agency
failed to answer nearly 235,000 phone calls -- 89.1 percent of all
calls placed -- during business weeks that ended Aug. 22, 2014,
and Sept. 22, 2014.  Callers gave up on nearly 29 percent of the
calls while waiting to be connected with an employee -- despite
phone upgrades made since 2011, auditors said.

The unemployment agency said those numbers were call attempts, not
unique callers; 48 percent of unique calls were unanswered in the
selected weeks.  The agency also said the unanswered volume
improved to 21 percent of total unique calls during the
corresponding weeks of 2015.

Employers in Michigan, who pay unemployment taxes to support the
system that pays benefits to jobless workers, say they, too, have
had trouble connecting to a live person on the other end of the
phone line.

"Once we can get the person to the right person at the agency,
we've found that they often get what they need," said
Wendy Block, director of health policy and human resources for the
Michigan Chamber of Commerce.  "We are encouraged by the changes
that were announced . . . simply because they are focused on
customer service."

Ms. Block said she believes the restructuring signals the agency
is serious about addressing the problems.  She hopes its new
leadership will focus on preventing identity theft, another
contributor to fraudulent claims.

The departure of Ms. Moffett-Massey, who led the Unemployment
Insurance Agency since 2014, could lead to other administrative
changes as Stokes overhauls the agency's operations.  She soon
plans to update a phone switchboard system to reduce wait times
for callers.

Ms. Stokes said companies needing information about filing taxes
or resolving other issues should expect improvement in the
agency's availability and timeliness going forward.

The agency says about 213,000 employers contribute to the system,
which collects about $1.4 billion annually in unemployment taxes.
It paid more than $1 billion in benefits on more than 600,000
claims in the 2014 fiscal year, according to audit reports.

Focus on fixing problems

Ms. Stokes, who moved to the talent agency from the Michigan
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs in July, said she
spent three to four months examining the unemployment agency,
visiting offices and talking to hundreds of staffers to learn more
about the organization's challenges.

Her plan will focus on improving customer service via phone,
online and in person, including updating signs at agency offices;
increasing internal efficiency, transparency and accountability;
and working to protect unemployed residents filing claims and
employers who pay taxes into the system both from fraud and being
wrongly accused of fraud.

"How can we do it better?" she said in an interview.  "That's been
my focus, and this is a result of what I've seen so far. It's the
right time to make this decision and to start moving ahead."

She added: "Not to place blame, not to talk about what happened in
the past, but identify what those problems are and then fix them."

Jennifer Lord, an attorney with Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers PC
in Royal Oak and the lead attorney on the potential class-action
case in the state appeals court, said she wants the state to
freeze any action that might take money out of the so-called
"contingent fund" that includes unemployment funds and put it into
the state's general fund until the agency knows for certain
whether there are more false allegations of fraud.

Senate Bill 1008, which would approve that transfer, is pending on
Gov. Snyder's desk.  Snyder spokeswoman Anna Heaton said the
governor has not yet completed a full review of the bill.

Ms. Lord contends the funds don't belong to state taxpayers and
should not be used to balance the budget.

She said she is awaiting a date for oral arguments in the Court of
Appeals related to a pending class-action lawsuit that could
include an estimated 60,000 plaintiffs.  The case originated in
the Michigan Court of Claims.

"I hope it's a step in the right direction," Lord said of Ms.
Stokes' restructuring plan. "There are clearly still massive,
massive problems at the agency."

Gov. Snyder also has not yet signed a bill that passed unanimously
in the House and Senate that would prevent the state from
determining fraudulent claims without first being reviewed by a
person.

Ms. Heaton said Gov. Snyder likely will sign it, "given that it
codifies changes the UIA has already made to improve the
unemployment system."

Anticipated changes

The agency also will change the way it accounts for uncollected
unemployment taxes, Ms. Stokes said.  Previously, a decision on
whether an employer's taxes could be collected -- particularly in
cases when a company has gone out of business or left the state
-- didn't always occur, she said.  That led to inaccurate
accounting for tax revenue that never was going to be collected.

About 20 percent of anticipated tax collections were written down
as uncollectable as part of this process, an agency spokesman
said.  Going forward, the agency will look at those cases on a
quarterly basis and decide annually whether that money will be
received, Stokes said.

Ms. Moffett-Massey will work on special projects within the Talent
Investment Agency, including work with Michigan Works agencies,
Ms. Stokes said.  A new unemployment director is expected to be
hired this year.

Ms. Moffett-Massey earns $139,800; the range for the director
position is $113,000 to $143,000, according to the agency.

"We're making some changes that are going to allow us to use her
talents and skills in a better way and we're going to get some
fresh eyes on the organization," Ms. Stokes said in an interview.
"I'm going to allow the new person to come in and take a look at
our structure, look at how we're doing things, and then make the
appropriate adjustment so that we're doing our job the best way
that we can."


MICHIGAN: Major Overhaul Coming in UIA Following Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Bailey at wzzm13.com reports that the 13 Watchdog team is
learning about a major reorganization effort at Michigan's
Unemployment Insurance Agency, including the reassignment of the
agency's director Sharon Moffett-Massey.

Moffett-Massey has now been assigned to work on special projects
within the department. The leadership shakeup happens as the UIA
is being sued in a class action lawsuit by people who feel they
were wrongly accused of insurance fraud.

Bruce Noll, an executive within the state's Talent Investment
Agency (TIA), will serve as interim director during a national
search for a new director. The search is expected to last three to
four months.

TIA Director Wanda Stokes, who oversees the UIA, sat down with the
13 Watchdog team for an exclusive TV interview and said she is
going to be doing a top-to-bottom review of the department
focusing on better customer service, reviewing the agency's
structure and identifying and addressing fraud.

"We need to work quickly," Stokes said. "At all times we must
remember that we are here to serve our state's residents and
employers. When people are looking for work, they look to us for
help and we must do our best to get them the help they are
entitled to."

The fraud issue is the sticky part for the UIA at the moment.

The class action lawsuits are underway against the governmental
entity alleging people were falsely accused of fraud when they
made valid unemployment claims. The plaintiffs say the State of
Michigan wrongly took millions of dollars away from innocent
people.

One of the big changes that's already happened is the promise by
the UIA to have staff members actually looking at determinations
made, rather than relying solely on computer software which is
what had been happening over the last couple of years.

"What we have learned is that you need the individual to review
because our talented staff are trained properly and they can
review those claims," Stokes said.  "They are the best ones to
determine fraud."

Before the recent changes, the state's automated computer system
made fraud determinations on thousands of cases with little to no
input from the claimants or even state employees. Some of the
claimants were never notified there was a problem in the system
and were eventually found to have committed fraud even if they
weren't aware they were under investigation.

The state's Auditor General recently indicated the state's UIA did
not do enough to contact people who had claims that were
questioned.

The Auditor General also found the UIA's customer service was
abysmal.  At times they took about 10% of all calls into the
agency.

The Unemployment Insurance Agency recently indicated it reviewed
more than 20,000 fraud cases and more than 90 percent of them had
been overturned in favor of the claimant. Millions of dollars are
expected to be returned because of that suggesting all of these
changes needed to be made.

The lead attorney on the lawsuits, Jennifer Lord of Pitt McGehee
Palmer and Rivers, says there are approximately 60,000 people as
part of the class action lawsuits against the UIA. Many of those
claimants were the ones complaining that money was wrongly
confiscated through the garnishment process. They are now having
to wait through a lengthy court process to get their money back.

"It was not (the state's) money to take," Lord said.

As part of the changes, Stokes, who became the Talent Investment
Agency director back in July, indicated she has an extensive plan
to make the agency better.

"We don't want it to be the worst experience for people," Stoke
said.  "Our goal is to make sure the experience is the best it can
be."

She says the UIA will address better customer service issues and
she promises the agency will "do a better job listening to its
customers to ensure they are assisted effectively and efficiently
to get the benefits they are entitled to."


MIDWEST SERVICING: Violates Debt Collection Laws, Salazar Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Salazar, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Midwest Servicing Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00137-PSG-KS (C.D. Cal., January 8,
2017), accuses the Defendant of violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Defendant Midwest Servicing Group Inc is a U.S.-based collection
service company that specializes in collecting monthly payments
for resorts located outside the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas J Bontrager, Esq.
   George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
   MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
   6464 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 960
   Los Angeles, CA 90028
   Tel: (323) 940-1697
        (323) 940-1700
   Fax: (323) 328-8095
   Email: Nick@mblawapc.com
          tom@mblawapc.com


MILBERG LLP: Faces Suit by Kahn Swick Over Vioxx Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek at Forbes reports that a Louisiana law firm known
for representing investors in securities fraud class actions
claims it is being shortchanged by a leading class action firm it
teamed with to sue the maker of the painkiller Vioxx.

In November, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, considered one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms, filed its
lawsuit against Milberg LLP in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans.

"Through misrepresentation and the omission of true information,
and in bad faith, Milberg induced KSF to enter into a joint
venture to jointly prosecute the Merck litigation, in conjunction
with KSF's hand-selected affiliate New Jersey counsel, despite
knowing always that it was under investigation by the United
States Attorney concerning a conspiracy and kickback scheme in
which it had engaged for over two decades, which also included
obstructing justice, perjury, bribery and fraud," attorneys for
KSF wrote in the Nov. 21 complaint.

KSF's complaint notes that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles, in
May 2006, indicted Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and two of
its senior partners on federal conspiracy, fraud and money
laundering charges.

KSF alleges Milberg asked KSF to serve as its Louisiana local
counsel in 2003, entering into an oral joint venture agreement in
which KSF would be entitled to 10 percent of Milberg's proceeds
from the litigation plus KSF's lodestar for its services as
liaison counsel.

KSF's complaint cites a May 18, 2006, press release issued by U.S.
Attorney for the Central District of California -- at the time,
Debra Wong Yang -- alleging Milberg participated in a scheme in
which several individuals were paid millions of dollars in secret
kickbacks in exchange for serving as named plaintiffs in more than
150 class action and shareholder derivative action lawsuits.

According to the 2006 press release, the indictment alleged
Milberg had received more than $200 million in attorneys' fees
from these lawsuits over the past 20 years.

KSF contends that immediately following Milberg's indictment,
Milberg's hold on its co-lead counsel position in the Merck
litigation was "in peril."


MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Homeowners Sue Over Sinking Tower
------------------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
homeowners in San Francisco's sinking, tilting luxury high-rise
are suing the city and the building's developer over claims they
hid engineering flaws for years.

Twenty tenants who collectively paid about $75 million for
condominiums allege the city and Millennium Partners knew as early
as February 2009, before the units were sold, that the structure
was unstable, sinking more than four times engineers' estimates
while continuing to tilt in the earthquake-prone city.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued the developer in
August, claiming Millennium Partners alone knew that the 58-story
tower was sinking faster than expected.

John Cote, spokesman for Herrera, said the city shares the
frustrations of Millennium Tower's residents.

"Any notion that the city was somehow involved in a conspiracy to
defraud residents is ridiculous and completely baseless,"
Mr. Cote said in an e-mailed statement.  Millennium Partners and
its vice president in San Francisco, Sean Jeffries, couldn't be
immediately reached for comment.

The Jan. 6 complaint in San Francisco state court is the second
filed by residents seeking class-action status.  The earlier case
includes allegations of unfair business practices, creating
dangerous conditions and breach of construction standards.  The
new complaint, alleging conspiracy to commit fraud, says the
city's Department of Building Inspection and the developer
colluded to keep secret the condition of the multibillion-dollar
project linked to redevelopment of a nearby city bus terminal.
Earthquake Vulnerability

"At present, the building has sunk at least 16 inches vertically
and is tilting northwest 2 inches at its base and 15 inches at its
highest point," according to the complaint, which was filed by
Jerry Dodson, a lawyer who is also a Millennium Tower resident.

Claiming the tower is vulnerable to damage in an earthquake,
Dodson says residents weren't told of the structure's flaws until
a 2016 homeowners association meeting.

The building continues to shift because it stands on a thin pile
of soft soil without being anchored to the stronger bedrock that
lies beneath, according to the complaint. The pile of soil
directly under the tower is constantly shifting under the pressure
of the structure.

The residents cite a 2004 case in which a smaller building using
similar construction techniques was planned in the city. The
Department of Building Inspection stopped that project when
engineers determined it was too heavy, concluding it would sink
and remain vulnerable in an earthquake, according to the
complaint.

Millennium Tower is both taller and heaver than the 2004 project,
according to the filing.

The case is Buttery v. Jeffries, CGC-17-556292, Superior Court of
the State of California (San Francisco).


MILZY OF VILLA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Reiman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Reiman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Milzy of Villa, LLC d/b/a Carolyn's
Cleaning, Heather Grissom, and Milen Patel, Case No. 8:16-cv-
03504-CEH-TGW (M.D Fla., December 27, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial
cleaning company located at 4130 Lamson Avenue, Spring Hill,
Florida 34608.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Odato, Esq.
      Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
      CREED & PINKARD, PLLC
      13043 West Linebaugh Avenue
      Tampa, FL 33626
      Telephone: (813) 444-4332
      Facsimile: (813) 441-6121
      E-mail: jodato@creedlawgroup.com
              dcreed@creedlawgroup.com


MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for PennRecord, reports that a former
employee has filed a class action lawsuit against Mudtech Services
L.P., alleging violation of Pennsylvania and Ohio wage laws.

Allen Gallow filed a complaint on Nov. 17 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County against Mudtech Services L.P., alleging
that the employer failed to provide proper compensation to the
plaintiff for his work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
well over 40 hours per week but was not paid an overtime premium.
The plaintiff holds Mudtech Services L.P. responsible because the
defendant allegedly misclassified the plaintiff as an independent
contractor in order to avoid paying overtime wages.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid back
wages, interest, court costs and any further relief this court
grants.  He is represented by Joshua P. Geist of Goodrich & Geist,
P.C. in Pittsburgh.

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Case number GD-16-022247


MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Rigged Jackpots
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
hundreds of thousands of lottery players who were allegedly
cheated by an insider's long-running scheme to rig jackpots should
be reimbursed for their losing tickets, according to a lawsuit
filed on Jan. 4 that seeks class action certification.

Lawyers filed the consumer fraud case against the Multi-State
Lottery Association, the Iowa-based nonprofit that helps
administer games that are offered by state lotteries. It alleges
the association failed to prevent games from being rigged and
failed to operate them in accordance with their own rules.

The association's former security director, Eddie Tipton, is
charged with installing software on lotteries' random number
generators that allowed him to predict winning numbers on three
days of the year.

Prosecutors say Tipton worked with his brother and a longtime
friend to buy winning tickets worth millions between 2005 and 2011
in Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma. The alleged
scheme unraveled after Tipton was caught on surveillance video
buying a winning $16 million Hot Lotto ticket in December 2010
that others would unsuccessfully try to cash a year later.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, 53-year-old insurance salesman Dale
Culler of Burlington, Iowa, kept the $45 in tickets that he played
in that drawing, along with a detailed ledger of all games he
plays.

"While I know the odds aren't great, I never expected that the
games were fixed and my chance was zero," he said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed in Iowa district court in Des Moines, argues
that Culler should serve as the representative for a class that
would consist of all those who bought tickets for games on dates
in which winning numbers were made predictable by Tipton's
software.  It alleges that hundreds of thousands of lottery
players lost money and should be reimbursed plus interest.

Allowing them to join as a class would be more economical than
pursuing individual lawsuits because the amount each player lost
is relatively small compared to the expense of suing the
association, the lawsuit argues.  The games known to be at issue
include Hot Lotto, Colorado Lotto, Wisconsin Megabucks and Kansas
2X2, but the litigation could uncover others, said one of the
plaintiff's attorneys, Nicholas Mauro.

He said the lawsuit will ask a judge to find the association
liable for the rigged games first, and to certify the group as a
class later.  He said that players who did not keep their tickets
should be allowed to join the class by filing a sworn statement of
their participation, a form of proof allowed in some
jurisdictions.

Investigators say Tipton installed software on the random number
generators that worked as intended 362 days of the year, but
directed them to produce predictable numbers May 27, Nov. 22 and
Dec. 29 if the drawings also occurred on Wednesdays or Saturdays
after 8 p.m. Even then, Tipton wouldn't know the precise winning
combinations but that they'd be predictable.

Investigators alleged in a filing that Tipton supplied his friend,
Texas businessman Robert Rhodes, with several index cards with
potential winning combinations written on them and instructed him
to play them all for a Wisconsin Megabucks game to be drawn Dec.
29, 2007.  After driving around Wisconsin in a rental car buying
them at different stores, Rhodes won and split the $783,000 cash
jackpot with Tipton, the filing says.

The association has argued that Tipton, who was fired after his
arrest, acted alone.  Still, the group's board ousted longtime
executive director and founder Chuck Strutt in the wake of the
scandal and has also made numerous security improvements.

The lawsuit is the first potential class action to arise from the
jackpot-rigging allegations and the second suit overall.  The
first was filed on behalf of Iowa financial planner "Lucky" Larry
Dawson, who won a $9 million jackpot in 2011 but contends it
should have been worth $25.5 million had the prior drawing not
been rigged.  A judge ruled in October that the case can move
forward.


MYPILLOW: BBB Revokes Accreditation Following Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Harwell, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
list of problems keeps growing for My Pillow, the popular
Minnesota-based pillow maker known for its late-night TV
informercials and celebrity endorsements.

Just months after settling a class action lawsuit alleging false
and deceptive advertising, My Pillow has taken a hit over a
different set of consumer complaints.

On Jan. 3, the Better Business Bureau announced that it had
revoked My Pillow's accreditation and lowered its rating from an
A-plus to an F, saying the company's longstanding "buy one, get
one free" offer was unfair and confusing to customers.

The BBB said the offer violated the organization's code of
advertising by marketing pillows in a two-for-one "deal" that was
in fact the regular price.  Consumers might have thought they were
getting a special deal, the BBB found, but they were really paying
the full cost of the product, as the Minneapolis Star Tribune
reported.

"Continuous BOGO offers, which can then be construed as an item's
regular, everyday price, violate not only BBB's Code of
Advertising, which all BBB Accredited Businesses agree to abide
by, but also other state and national organizations' rules," said
Dana Badgerow, president of BBB in Minnesota and North Dakota.

Losing BBB accreditation doesn't carry any legal or financial
penalties, but it does strip My Pillow of a widely-used industry
certification designed to help establish consumer trust in a
company.  The F rating is the lowest mark a company can receive in
the BBB's rating system based on a company's complaint history.  A
company's rating can be lowered when the bureau "determines that
the business is not being transparent about its marketplace
conduct," among other reasons, according to the BBB website.

Founded in 2005, My Pillow touts its product as the "most
comfortable pillow you'll ever own."  The infomercials, a staple
of late-night television, have claimed the pillow can prevent
sleep loss associated with a range of ailments.  The company has
sold some 18 million pillows in the past decade at about $50 each,
pulling in $100 million annually, as the Star Tribune has
reported.

The BBB said they received a "pattern of complaints" about My
Pillow's buy one, get one offer. Bureau officials said they began
urging My Pillow founder and spokesman Michael J. Lindell to
discontinue the marketing ploy, and were left with no choice but
to dock the company's rating when he didn't respond, the Star
Tribune reported.

Barb Grieman, senior vice president for the BBB in Minnesota, said
the bureau seldom gives out F ratings because companies tend to
comply.

"We can't understand why he's not making the changes," Mr. Grieman
told the Star Tribune.  "We're not saying he can't offer a BOGO,
just not continuously all year long."

According to the BBB, My Pillow should have ended the offer after
30 days.

"It's unfair to businesses in the same industry," Mr. Grieman
said. "We want advertising to be clear."

Mr. Lindell said on Jan. 3 he was disappointed in the BBB's
decision.  He told KARE that he wouldn't be able to stop the sale
at the moment but would make unspecified changes later this year.
In a tweet on Jan. 3 he said he was "sorry about the new rating as
my customer service is the most important thing to me."

The BBB said it has received 232 complaints about My Pillow in the
past three years.  Most have related to the buy one, get one
offer, the BBB said, but the organization said consumers raised
other issues as well.  Among them were complaints that the pillow
advertised on TV was not the same as the one they received and
that a "full warranty" required purchasers to pay a fee to return
the product, according to KANE.

The bureau's announcement comes just a few months after My Pillow
agreed to pay $1 million to settle a consumer lawsuit alleging the
company overstated the benefits of its products.  The company had
claimed its pillows could prevent sleep loss from insomnia,
restless leg syndrome, neck pain, fibromyalgia, sleep apnea and
migraines, raising alarms at the consumer watchdog Truth in
Advertising.org, as The Washington Post reported.  The
organization also objected to Mr. Lindell's claim that he was a
"sleep expert," when he had no such training.  Mr. Lindell said he
chose to settle the case rather than pay the legal fees to fight
it.  The company did not admit fault.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces New England Patriot Fans Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
New England Patriots Fans v. National Football League, Roger
Goodell, and Robert Kraft, Case No. cv-16-3929G (Mass. Cmmw.,
December 23, 2016), is brought by New England Patriots fans on
behalf of all Patriots fans who believe the New England Patriots
professional football team were harmed by the Defendants'
arbitrary and capricious decision to revoke the Patriots first
round draft choice in the April 28, 2016 National Football League
Draft for alleged participation in a cheating scandal.

National Football League is a professional football league, made
up of 32 teams.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth T. Carey, Esq.
      CAREY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      114 Congress St., P.O. Box 100
      Rumford, ME 04276
      Telephone: (207) 364-7826
      E-mail: stcareylaw@gwi.net


NATIONAL MILK: Settles Milk Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a $52 million settlement
has been reached in an antitrust class action lawsuit pending
against several milk producers alleging they conspired to fix milk
prices.

According to the complaint, the defendants, namely National Milk
Producers Federation aka Cooperatives Working Together (CWT),
Dairy Farmers of America Inc., Land O'Lakes Inc., Dairylea
Cooperative Inc. and Agri-Mark Inc., participated in an agreement
to prematurely slaughter the dairy cows in their herds and, as of
April 1, 2009, they agreed not to re-enter the dairy farming
business for at least one year. Who does this?

"The principle purpose and effect of this contract, combination
and conspiracy has been to reduce the supply of milk, eliminate
competition, and significantly reduce the number of dairy farmers
competing in the market in order to increase the price of raw farm
milk," the lawsuit states.

Under the terms of the proposed milk pricing antitrust settlement,
which requires final court approval, a total of $52 million in
compensation will be made available to Class Members. The actual
amount of compensation each Class Member can expect to receive
depends on how much milk was purchased for their household, and
how many total claims are filed.

Eligible class members include consumers who purchased milk or
other milk products including half & half, cream cheese, sour
cream, cottage cheese, yogurt or cream, since 2003 while living in
one of these states: Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Consumers must have bought the milk
products from a grocery store or other retailer and not directly
from the defendants.


NEOVASC INC: Wins Dismissal of "Grobler" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard G. Stearns of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, SERGIO
GROBLER, v. NEOVASC INC. ET AL, Case No. 16-11038-RGS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Sergio Grobler purchased shares in defendant Neovasc
Inc., a company controlled by defendants Alexei Marko (as chief
executive officer) and Christopher Clark (as chief financial
officer). When Neovasc was hit with a $70 million jury verdict
after being accused of theft of intellectual property, Grobler
brought suit, claiming that defendants had misled investors about
the likely outcome of the case. Grobler also sought to represent a
class of similarly situated purchasers.

Grobler asserts claims under section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that statute; and
section 20a of the Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/p8DPx7 from Leagle.com, Judge Stearns concluded that
Grobler's section 20 claim necessarily fails because Grobler fails
to make out a viable claim under the Rule.

Sergio Grobler is represented by Joseph Edward White, III, Esq. --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- and Lester Hooker Esq. --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- SAXENA WHITE P.A.

Yang Zhan is represented by Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. --
jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Alexei Marko, et al. are represented by Brian P. Miller, Esq.
Bryan T. West, Esq. -- and Samantha J. Kavanaugh, Esq. -- AKERMAN
LLP; Alan D. Rose, Sr., Esq. -- adr@rose-law.net -- Meredith
Wilson Doty, Esq. -- mwd@rose-law.net -- and Michael L. Chinitz,
Esq. -- mlc@rose-law.net -- ROSE, CHINITZ & ROSE


NESTLE SA: Sued for Underfilling Raisinets Candy Boxes
------------------------------------------------------
FoxNews.com reports that a California woman has sued food and
drink giant Nestle, claiming that the company purposefully
deceives customers by "recklessly" underfilling its boxes of
Raisinets candy.

Plaintiff Sandy Hafer filed the class action lawsuit on Jan. 3 in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
According to Law360, Ms. Hafer alleges that the "opaque packaging
of Nestle USA Inc.'s Raisinets candies leads customers to believe
they are buying a full box of the chocolate-coated raisins when,
in fact, the box is only 60 percent full."

Since customers can't really see the contents of each box of candy
until after it's opened, "approximately 40 percent each
[Raisinets'] packaging is non-functional slack-fill -- empty space
which serves no functional purpose under the law," according to
the suit.

Though some food products, like potato chips or crackers in a bag,
contain air to protect them from crumbling, Ms. Hafer's suit
claims that since Raisinets are "smooth" and protected with "with
confectioner's glaze" the extra space in the candy's box is
unnecessary and deceptive.  Nestle, says the suit, "recklessly
disregarded the fact that the products contained a significant
amount of non-functional slack-fill," which ultimately ends up
misleading customers.

The lawsuit contends that Nestle's "deceptive packaging" violates
California's false advertising and unfair competition laws.

Raisinets, which have been around since the 1920s, are sold in
both boxes and flexible plastic packaging.  Ms. Hafer says she
purchased a questionable box of the chocolate-covered raisin
confections at a Ralph's grocery in California and assumed it
would contain a lot more of the candy than it actually did due to
the relatively large size of the box.

"However, the Nestle Dark Chocolate Raisinets [she] purchased
contained approximately 40% empty space," the suit states.  "She
would not have purchased the Product or would have paid
significantly less for the Product had she known that the package
was only approximately 60% full of Raisinets."

Now, Ms. Hafer says many customers (the suit is seeking to
represent at least thousands of people), including herself, have
suffered injury and lost money as a result of Nestl‚'s
"misleading, false, unfair, and fraudulent practices."

Ms. Hafer, who is represented by Barbara A. Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- and Benjamin Heikali of Faruqi & Faruqi Los
Angeles' office, is seeking at least $5 million in refunds and any
interest accrued from previous purchases.

A representative for Nestle was not immediately available for
comment.


OCWEN LOAN: Belcher Files Amended Suit, Court Rules on Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, TIMOTHY J. BELCHER, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-CV-690-T-23AEP (M.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli on January 9, 2017,
granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Better Responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Production, to Compel Better Responses to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, to Compel Defendant to
Provide Responsive Documents to Plaintiff's First Request for
Production.

Also on January 9, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Unlawful Debt Collection Practices.

Last month, District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part
Ocwen's motion to dismiss, but gave the Plaintiff an opportunity
to amend the lawsuit.

Belcher sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (federal act); and
Section 559.55, Florida Statutes, the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act (Florida act). According to the complaint, in 2006
Belcher financed the purchase of a house with a loan secured by a
mortgage. Belcher defaulted and applied for assistance under a
federally sponsored program. Ocwen offered Belcher a trial period
for the assistance program. Belcher paid the initial trial-period
amount and continued timely payments. Belcher alleges that Ocwen
violated the federal act and the Florida Act by attempting
collection efforts on the principal loan after Belcher commenced
the trial plan.

Ocwen moves under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
to dismiss Belcher's amended class-action complaint. Ocwen argues
that a February 2014 consent order in another action fails to
provide Belcher with a private right of action and thus cannot
form the basis of Belcher's claims; that the "Home Affordable
Modification Program" (HAMP) trial plan contradicts Belcher's
claims; that Belcher's federal and state claims fail as a matter
of law; and that the amended complaint must be dismissed because
Belcher  --  before filing the lawsuit  --  failed to notify Ocwen
in accord with the mortgage's pre-suit notice-and-cure
requirement.

In his Order dated December 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/9pnCmQ from Leagle.com, Judge Merryday granted
dismissal as to Belcher's claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(d)
and claim under Section 559.72(7), Florida Statutes and denied as
to violation of Section 559.72(9) because the alleges facts
sufficient to state a claim under Section 559.72(9).

Belcher may proceed under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(e)(4), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692(e)(10), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(f), and Section
559.72(9), Florida Statutes is given leave to amend his complaint
to conform to the order.

Timothy J. Belcher is represented by James Frazier Carraway, Esq.
-- fcarraway@saxongilmore.com -- and Claire Meryl Brueck, Esq. --
cbrueck@saxongilmore.com -- SAXON, GILMORE, CARRAWAY & GIBBONS, PA
-- Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- and --
Brandon Kyle Breslow, Esq. -- bbreslow@kmf-law.com -- KYNES,
MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Daniel Hurtes, Esq. --
Dhurtes@BlankRome.com -- and Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. --
Jculleiton@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP


ORTHOBANC LLC: "Mickler" Suit Alleges Job Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Mickler, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Orthobanc, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-
00054-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 9, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for job discrimination (age).

Defendant OrthoBanc, LLC is a risk assessment and payment
management provider specializing in electronic payments for
orthodontists, dentists and other companies that provide services
for a set monthly fee. OrthoBanc, LLC currently does business as
OrthoBanc, DentalBanc and PaymentBanc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Max H. Story, Esq.
   328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
   Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
   Tel: (904) 372-4109
   Fax: (904) 758-5333
   Email: max@storylawgroup.com


PAREXEL INT'L: Ex-Employee Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Work
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Northern California Record reports that a
former senior clinical research associate alleges she was not paid
for overtime work.

Schoulee Cones filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Parexel
International Corp. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she and
other employees worked more than eight hours per day without
receiving overtime wages, proper meal and rest periods, and timely
wages upon resignation or termination. As a result of defendant's
unfair practices, she alleges she has suffered irreparable harm
and damages.

The plaintiffs hold Parexel International Corp. responsible
because the defendant allegedly failed to keep or provide an
accurate record of its employees' hours worked and failed to
compensate/provide its employees of overtime wages and proper
meal/rest periods.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify as a class action; injunctive relief; general,
punitive, compensatory and consequential damages; interest;
attorneys' fees; expenses; costs of action; statutory penalties;
and further relief as the court deems necessary. She is
represented by Patrick N. Keegan and James M. Treglio of Keegan &
Baker LLP in Carlsbad and Walter Haines of The United Employees
Law Group in Huntington Beach.


PARKING CONCEPTS: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reny Navidad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Parking Concepts, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC644998 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 23, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Parking Concepts, Inc. is a California corporation that provides
parking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


PATTERN ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Pattern Energy Group Inc. securities between May 9, 2016 and
November 4, 2016, inclusive. Pattern investors have until January
10, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Pattern investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to -- howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com --

The Complaint filed in this class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Pattern's operations were deficient with respect to various
transaction, process level, and monitoring controls; (ii) as a
result, Pattern lacked effective internal financial controls; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Pattern's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 7, 2016, Pattern disclosed that it had a material
weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting.
According to the Company, internal controls were ineffective
primarily because of "deficiencies related to the implementation,
design, maintenance, and operating effectiveness of various
transaction, process level, and monitoring controls."

On this news, shares of Pattern fell over 3.5% to close at $20.86
per share on November 7, 2016. The Company's stock price then fell
another 9% on November 9, 2016, to close at just $19.05 per share,
thereby injuring investors.


PETSMART INC: "Leeds" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scott Leeds, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Petsmart,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-03006 CA 01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-25380-FAM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

PetSmart is an American retail chain operating in the United
States, Canada, and Puerto Rico engaged in the sale of specialty
pet supplies and services such as grooming and dog training, cat
and dog boarding facilities, and daycare.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Gail Ann McQuilkin, Esq.
          Michael Robert Lorigas, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: AMM@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  mlorigas@kttlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq.
          Robert Mark Brochin, Esq.
          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS, BOCKIUS LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415 3447
          Facsimile: (305) 415 3001
          E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com
                  bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com
                  brian.ercole@morganlewis.com


PHC INC: Feb. 27 Trial Against Directors Set
--------------------------------------------
Notice of Pendency of Class Action

To:  All Class A shareholders of PHC, Inc. who abstained from
voting or voted against the 2011 merger of PHC with Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc., and held their shares immediately prior
to and whose shares were converted to Acadia shares after the
effective merger date.

The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts has
certified In re: PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 11-
11049-PBS as a class action. A trial against certain former PHC
directors, Acadia and Acadia Merger Sub, LLC (the "Defendants"),
has been scheduled to begin on February 27, 2017.

This lawsuit alleges Defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to
the Class by causing the Merger to be effected on unfair terms and
pursuant to an unfair process. Plaintiff MAZ Partners LP, on
behalf of the Class, seeks an award of damages, interest, costs
and other relief, including additional Acadia shares. Plaintiff
must prove any entitlement to, and the amount of, any damages
awarded at trial. The Court appointed Wolf Popper LLP as Lead
Counsel to represent the Class. You may retain your own counsel at
your own expense.

If you want to stay in the Class and share in any potential
recovery, you need not do anything now. You will be bound by the
Court's determinations in this Action and will not be able to sue
the Defendants for these legal claims in any other lawsuit. If you
do not want to stay in the Class, you must exclude yourself. You
will not share in any potential recovery or be bound by any
decision in this lawsuit. However, you may be able to
file/continue with your own lawsuit against the Defendants at your
own expense. To exclude yourself, send a written request including
your name, address, email address, telephone number and signature,
and a statement indicating you request exclusion from the Class in
In re: PHC, Inc. Shareholder Litigation postmarked no later than
February 21, 2017 to:

         Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY  10022
         Tel No: 212-759-4600
         E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com



PHILADELPHIA: Judge Declares Landlord Liens Invalid, Null, & Void
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Maykuth at Philly.com reports that a federal judge has
permanently prohibited Philadelphia from placing liens on rental
properties for tenants' unpaid gas bills and has declared any
existing liens from unpaid tenant bills "invalid, null, and void."

In the final installment of a long-running class-action lawsuit,
U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner issued a permanent injunction
against the city and Philadelphia Gas Works over the city's
practice of dunning landlords for the unpaid bills of their
tenants.

The judge ordered the city to vacate outstanding liens on
registered rental properties since 2009, when PGW began using a
computerized lien-management system that automatically placed 200
to 300 liens a day on properties. The decision could invalidate
more than $25 million in liens.

The city also was ordered to refund all money it collected from
landlord liens since May, when Joyner placed a temporary
injunction in place.

"This case is one of constitutional dimension with consequences
that reach across a large class of landlords, which we have
surmised is in excess of 40,000," the judge said in his decision,
released to the public.

The decision makes permanent the injunction Joyner imposed, when
he ruled that the city's method of placing liens on landlord
properties without adequate notice was an unconstitutional taking
of property. In some cases, landlords learned of the liens only
after their deadbeat tenants were long gone.

Joyner declared the case a class action in November, meaning that
it would apply to all landlords, not just the five property owners
who brought the lawsuit in 2014.

"It's a great victory, exactly what we wanted," said John J.
Grogan, who with his law partner Irv Ackelsberg filed the suit.

The city is expected to appeal the decision. Barry O'Sullivan, a
spokesman for PGW, said the utility was reviewing the judge's
order.

The legality of the city's practice of placing liens on properties
for unpaid bills is not affected by the decision -- only the
method by which PGW dunned landlords for tenant bills. Unlike
investor-owned utilities, PGW as a government agency has the
authority to place liens on property for unpaid bills.

Liens are legal encumbrances that remain in place until they are
paid off, often when the property is sold.

The lawsuit did not seek to recover damages from the city beyond
the amounts listed in the liens.

"Although I do not gain monetarily from this decision, the
satisfaction of winning far outweighs any financial gain," said
David Wolf, the owner of Richmond Waterfront Industrial Park, one
of the plaintiffs.

Wolf said the action was designed to force the city to rework its
lien system to give landlords a fair warning that their tenants
had become delinquent on gas bills for which the property owner
might be held liable.

PGW argued that writing off the liens would cause hardship for its
other customers, from whom the utility ultimately would seek to
recover the money through higher rates. But the judge said the
"irreparable harm" the landlords suffered outweighed the cost to
PGW's customers.

Joyner said the city could resume placing liens on properties if
it devised a way to notify landlords with sufficient time to
resolve the dispute before it placed the liens.

He said that it "would be fairly easy and inexpensive for the city
to create a method for resolving disputes between landlords and
PGW," but that the city has "steadfastly insisted" it has a right
to do what it is doing.

"Insofar as the city has made clear that in the absence of a
direct mandate, it will make no changes to its system of liening
non-customer property owners for the long unpaid debts of their
tenants, we find that the entry of a permanent injunction is
necessary, appropriate and in the public interest," Joyner said.

From 2009 through March 2016 , the city placed 80,000 liens for
$71.8 million on properties that had different owners than the
names listed on the delinquent PGW accounts, which the court used
as a rough measure of rental properties. About $25.4 million is
still outstanding and could potentially be affected by the judge's
order.

The case is Augustin et al v. City of Philadelphia in U.S.
District Court. It was filed by landlords Lea and Gerard Augustin,
Thomas and Donna McSorley, and Richmond Waterfront Industrial
Park.

The law firm of Langer, Grogan & Diver is counsel for the
landlords. The city is represented by the Archer law firm.


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Case Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $30MM Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the lawyers who secured a $45
million settlement for Marlboro Lights smokers in Arkansas have
asked a judge to decide how much they should be paid.

The lawyers didn't ask for a specific amount in their payment
petition last month, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.  But
they said there is precedent that would allow them between
$12.4 million and $30 million from the settlement fund, based on
the value a judge places on their representation.

The lawyers said they worked more than 15,000 hours, valued at
$10.2 million, and spent $2.2 million of their own money to pursue
the litigation over 13 years.

According to the attorneys, the class-action lawsuit won
compensation for smokers who may have turned to the Lights brand
in hopes of getting a healthier product.  The lawsuit accused
Marlboro's parent company, Virginia-based Altria Group, of
marketing the Lights brand as safer than normal cigarettes when
that was not the case.

Lead Little Rock attorney Tom Thrash said the lawsuit also helped
bring the nationwide downfall of the lights class of cigarettes
banned by federal regulators as of 2010.

The attorneys' petition to the court also called the victory
"truly extraordinary, succeeding where lawyers in 18 other
jurisdictions had failed."

Along with their payment, the lawyers want a portion of the
settlement to go to the two lead plaintiffs in the suit, as well
as to Arkansas health agencies and anti-tobacco activists.

The lawyers will take up the question of their payment amount at a
hearing scheduled for Jan. 17.


PILOT FLYING J: Ruling May Return Suit to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Grisolano at Land Line reports that a recent ruling by a
federal appeals court means one of two lawsuits filed by a
trucking company against truck stop giant Pilot Flying J may be
returning to federal court.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November 2016 on the
civil suit brought by Wright Transportation against Pilot alleging
the company defrauded them out of monies owed to the trucking
company based on the truck stop chain's diesel fuel rebate
program. According to the ruling, the lawsuit should be tried in
federal court rather than at state court.

The appellate court's ruling is the latest in a long line of legal
maneuvers that began in April 2013, when federal agents raided
Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tenn. Eight former
executives and high-ranking employees have been charged in
connection with a fraud scheme, and the company agreed to pay out
more than $85 million in restitution to more than 5,000 customers
who had partaken in the company's rebate plan. The company also
agreed to pay $92 million in fines and accept responsibility for
the criminal conduct of its employees.  Ten former employees have
pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Wright Transportation was one of a handful of trucking companies
to opt out of the restitution agreement and proceeded to sue Pilot
in civil court. Another case is ongoing against the truck stop
chain in Ohio state court. Wright's original lawsuit was filed at
the federal level and sought class action status. While Wright's
lawsuit was pending in Alabama federal court, another class action
filed in Arkansas reached a court-approved settlement, which
Wright Transportation and six other companies opted out of. Once
the class action question was resolved by the Arkansas filing,
Wright sought to dismiss its case out of federal court to refile
at the state level. The appellate court's ruling reverses that
decision and remands the case to federal court.

Stephen Tunstall, at Riderattorney.com LLC  the attorney
representing Wright Transportation, declined to comment on the
court's ruling, citing an appeal filed on behalf of his client
that seeks a full-panel review from the 11th Circuit.

Steve Brody -- steven.brody@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis,
attorney for Pilot Flying J, said the court's ruling was "a
positive step toward a favorable resolution of the claims brought
by Wright Transportation."

"We hope the 11th Circuit decision dispels that unrealistic belief
by making it clear that Wright's case belongs in federal court,
where it is subject to the court's prior rulings, including an
order dismissing the majority of Wright's frivolous claims," Brody
said in a statement emailed to Land Line.

In addition to Pilot Corp. and Pilot Travel Centers LLC, named
defendants in the Wright lawsuit include Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam,
former executives Mark Hazelwood, and John Freeman, and former
director of sales Brian Mosher. Hazelwood and Freeman were
indicted in February 2016 on criminal charges of conspiracy
related to the rebate scheme. Mosher is one of the 10 former
employees to have already pleaded guilty.

The suit alleges that Pilot specifically targeted smaller
companies only to cook the books and skim some of the discount
moneys for itself to pay lavish bonuses to its officers, managers
and employees, including Haslam. Haslam has not been charged in
connection with the criminal case and has repeatedly denied any
knowledge of the scheme.


REPAIRCLINIC LLC: Faces "Gamez" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Repairclinic, LLC.
The case is titled as Joshua Gamez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Repairclinic,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09658 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
30, 2016).

Repairclinic is an online store selling replacement parts and
maintenance products for over appliance, lawn equipment, power
tools and heating & cooling equipment brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


RS&H INC: "Jones" Suit Alleges Job Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------
Bradley Jones, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. RS&H, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-
00054-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 9, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for job discrimination (age).

Defendant RS&H, Inc. is a facilities and infrastructure consulting
firm in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kendra D. Presswood,Esq.
   SHANKMAN LEONE, PA
   707 N Franklin St Ste 500
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Tel: (813) 223-1099
   Fax: (813) 223-1055
   Email: kpresswood@shankmanleone.com


SAGE CLIENT: "Sarego" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deidra Sarego, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sage Client 258 LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-06636-JD (E.D.
Pend., December 27, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sage Client 258 LLC owns and operates Urban Farmer Philadelphia
restaurant in Philadelphia, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492


SANIMAX: Green Bay Residents Seek Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Krumholz, writing for FOX 11 News, reports that a settlement
agreement between Sanimax and area residents is now in the hands
of a county judge.

From the lawsuit's beginning more than two years ago, FOX 11
Investigates has been following the legal battle over the emission
odors from the animal rendering-plant on Green Bay's west side.

"I've lived there for almost 20 years and it's been pretty
consistent and we keep hearing it's going to be fixed," said
Ken Dollhopf of Green Bay.

Appearing in Brown County Court over the phone, lawyers for both
Sanimax and its neighbors asked for final approval of a lawsuit
settlement that they both believe will cure the plant's odor
emissions and provide residents financial relief.

"It was definitely a negotiation because there was not an
agreement initially, or on many parts, until we ultimately got
down to a final agreement, which we then worked out," said Richard
Barron, the attorney for Sanimax.

According to both attorneys, the settlement includes $915,000 to
be divided among the suit's participating residents.  Up to
$460,000 of that could pay court costs and attorney fees.  Sanimax
would put $375,000 toward improvements to its facility that must
be completed in the next one to two years.

Nearly 11,000 residents living within a two-mile radius of Sanimax
qualified to be part of the lawsuit.  Of those who chose to
participate, two residents opted out of the settlement agreement.

It's unclear how many residents could possibly benefit from the
settlement.  FOX 11 planned to ask the attorney representing the
residents, but she did not respond to our call for comment.

"We've done several of these class actions, your honor, and I can
tell you in a class size that big, those numbers were very
pleasing to us, because they showed, like I said, an overwhelming
support for the settlement agreement," Laura Sheets, the attorney
representing the residents in the lawsuit, told the court.

Brown County Supervisor Patrick Evans represents the Sanimax area.
He told the court his constituents were confused by the lawsuit
and just want the smell to go away.

"The people who could utilize some dollars were the ones who were
probably most intimidated by getting into a class action lawsuit,"
said Ms. Evans.

The settlement includes a cooling off period that is supposed to
give Sanimax time to fix the odor emission issues. After that
period, if the smell remains, residents in the suit could sue
again.

"I'm not that interested in the past, as I am the future," said
Mr. Dollhopf.

The judge on the case says he expects to issue a settlement
decision in about ten days.


SCHAEFFLER GROUP: March 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
If You Are a Truck and/or Equipment Dealership That Purchased
Vehicles or Bought Certain Parts for a Vehicle in the U.S. Since
2000 You Could Receive Money from Settlements of Class Actions

Lawsuits involving the prices of certain vehicle component parts
have been settled with certain Defendants in various class actions
in this litigation ("Settling Defendants").  The Settling
Defendants are identified below.  The cases are separate class
actions within the lead case known as In re Automotive Parts
Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), which is currently
before United States District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

You may be part of a class action settlement if you are a Truck
and/or Equipment dealership that indirectly purchased certain
component parts and/or vehicles for resale or lease containing
these parts ("Dealer") in the District of Columbia or one or more
of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.

What Are The Lawsuits About?

The lawsuits claim that the Defendants in each lawsuit agreed to
unlawfully raise the price of certain motor vehicle component
parts.  As a result, dealers of Trucks and/or Equipment who
purchased for resale or lease Trucks and/or Equipment containing
those parts or who indirectly purchased those parts as replacement
parts, which were manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any
subsidiary, affiliate, or alleged co-conspirator of a Defendant
may have paid more than they should have.  Although the Settling
Defendants have agreed to settle, the Settling Defendants do not
agree that they engaged in any wrongdoing or are liable or owe any
money or benefits to Plaintiffs.  The Court has not yet decided
who is right.

The Court has appointed Duane Morris LLP as interim class counsel
("Class Counsel") in these lawsuits to represent your dealership
and all other members of the class actions.  Your dealership will
not be charged directly by these lawyers, and any fees that they
are paid will come from any settlements or recovery in these
lawsuits.  If your dealership wants to be represented by its own
lawyer, it may hire one at its own expense.

Who's Included In The Settlements?

Your dealership is part of one or more of the Settlements if it is
a Truck and Equipment Dealer and falls within the definition of
one or more of the settlement classes ("Settlement Classes")
approved by Judge Battani.  The class definitions are set forth in
the full length Notice.  The term "Truck and Equipment Dealer" or
"Truck and Equipment Dealership" means an entity or person
authorized to engage in the business of selling or dealing in
Trucks and/or Equipment at retail in the United States.  A list of
the parts included in these Settlements and their manufacturers
can be found at http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

Who Are The Settling Defendants

The Settling Defendants are:  Schaeffler Group USA Inc.
("Schaeffler"); JTEKT Corporation and JTEKT North America
Corporation, formerly known as Koyo Corporation of U.S.A.
(collectively, "JTEKT"); and NTN Corporation and NTN USA
Corporation (collectively "NTN").  A list of the Defendants, their
affiliates, and the alleged co-conspirators for each case
involving the parts described in the Settlement Class definitions
and settlement agreements is available at
http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com

What Do The Settlements Provide

Generally, you are included if, at any time between January 1,
2000 and November 21, 2016 for Bearings, you were a dealer of
heavy-duty (Class 8) or medium-duty (Class 4, 5, 6, & 7) trucks,
buses, commercial vehicles (excluding automobiles, light trucks,
vans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers, pickup trucks, and/or
similar motor vehicles sold by automobile dealers), all-terrain
vehicles, construction equipment, mining equipment, agricultural
equipment, railway vehicles, materials-handling vehicles, and
other similar vehicles ("Trucks and/or Equipment") that:  (a)
purchased Trucks and/or Equipment containing a Bearings; (b)
indirectly purchased a Bearing as a replacement part.  Indirectly
means you bought the vehicle replacement part from someone other
than the manufacturer of the part.

The specific definition of who is included in each Settlement
Class is set forth in each Settlement Agreement between the
Settlement Classes and the Settling Defendants.  Each of those
Settlement Agreements, and the related Complaints are accessible
on the website http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

The Settlement Funds total approximately $5.7 million. Detailed
information about the respective Settlements and the parts
involved can be found in the full-length Notice, which is
available at http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com. The amount of
money your dealership may receive, if any, will depend upon where
the dealership purchased the affected vehicles or component parts,
the type and quantity of vehicles and parts your dealership
purchased in the states listed above and the District of Colombia,
and the total number of claims made by eligible Truck and
Equipment Dealers.

What Are My Rights And Options?

1. Opt Your Dealership Out of the Settlements
If your dealership purchased any of the parts listed in the
Settlement Class definitions as components in the specified
vehicles or as parts and purchased such vehicles or parts in the
states listed in this Notice or the District of Columbia and does
not want to be legally bound by the Settlements, your dealership
must exclude itself ("opt out") in a writing postmarked by
March 1, 2017, or it will not be able to sue, or continue to sue,
the Settling Defendants (including all related entities covered by
the release in the individual settlement agreements) about the
legal claims settled in the settlement agreements.

If your dealership submits a valid and timely request for
exclusion / opt out, it will not share in the proceeds of that
Settlement, and it will not be bound by the judgment.  To be
valid, the request for exclusion / opt out must follow the
instructions set forth in the full-length Notice and be postmarked
by March 1, 2017.  The full instructions and requirements for
opting out may be viewed at http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

2. Object to the Settlement
If your dealership wishes to object to one or more of the
Settlements or the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and service awards, it may write to the Court and
counsel about why it objects.  To be considered, your dealership's
objection must be filed according to the procedures set forth in
the full-length Notice and postmarked no later than March 1, 2017.
The full instructions and requirements for objecting to one or
more of the Settlements may be viewed at
http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

3. Attend the Final Approval Hearing
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 2:30 p.m. on
March 22, 2017, at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231
W. Lafayette Blvd., Courtroom 272, Detroit, MI 48226 to decide
whether to approve the Settlements and the request for attorney's
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards.  You or your
own lawyer may attend and ask the Court's permission to speak, but
you don't have to participate in the hearing in order to attend.
To request to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must follow
the procedures set forth in the full-length Notice no later than
March 1, 2017.

The complete terms, including the definitions of what parties and
claims are being released are set forth in the full-length Notice,
settlement agreements, and the Court filings which may be obtained
at http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.

For more information, contact the Settlement Administrator toll
free at 1-866-742-4955 or visit
http://www.TruckDealerSettlement.com.


SCOTT AND ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Maintain Surety Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sajhresa Hill, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Scott and Associates, P.C., Case No. D-l-GN-16-006159
(261st Tex. Ct., December 27, 2016), alleges that the Defendant is
acting illegally as a debt collector in Texas due to its failure
to maintain a $10,000.00 surety bond as required by the Texas
Finance Code.

Scott and Associates, P.C. is in the business of collecting
defaulted consumer debts and judgments originally owed to other
entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent A. Devere, Esq.
      DEVERE LAW FIRM
      1411 West Avenue, Suite #200
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 457-8080
      Facsimile: (512) 457-8060
      E-mail: BDevere@14llwest.com

         - and -

      Tyler Hickle, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF TYLER HICKLE
      4005C Banister Lane, Suite 120C
      Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (512) 289-3831
      Facsimile: (512) 870-9505
      E-mail: tylerhickle@hicklelegal.com


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased StoneMor Partners L.P.
common units between January 19, 2012 and October 27, 2016,
inclusive.  Units purchased in the open-market or traceable to the
secondary offerings issued in May 2014, July 2015 and/or April
2016 are part of the class.

Investors who have incurred losses in StoneMor Partners L.P. units
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may also review the filed
complaint and obtain additional information concerning the action
on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you purchased the common units of StoneMor Partners L.P. within
the class period and suffered losses, you may, no later than
January 20, 2017, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.

StoneMor Partners L.P. operates cemeteries in the United States,
primarily along the East Coast.  The Company owns various
cemeteries and operates others through management agreements.
StoneMor sells burial lots, lawn and mausoleum crypts, cremation
niches, and perpetual care.

According to the filed Complaint, StoneMor made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the Class
Period: (1) that the Company's reported non-GAAP financial metrics
were materially misleading and concealed the truth about the
Company's actual financial condition; and  (2) that the primary
purpose of the Company's regular debt and equity offerings were to
pay distributions to unitholders rather than to pay down
indebtedness under the Company's revolving credit facility as
publicly stated. As a result, StoneMor's statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On October 27, 2016, StoneMor shocked investors when it announced
a "temporary" 50% reduction in its quarterly cash distribution to
$0.33 per share and that third quarter sales goals "meaningfully
lagged our expectations." On the resumption of trading on October
28, 2016, the units closed at $13.74, a decline of $11.08 per
unit.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com


TARO PHARMA: Faces Rochester Suit Over Generic Fluocinonide
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries,
Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz,
Inc., and Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06639-CMR
(E.D. Penn., December 27, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and
others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
raise, fix, and maintain prices, allocate markets, and/or rig bids
for generic generic fluocinonide ("Fluocinonide").

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              nurban@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


TELIGENT INC: Faces Rochester Suit Over Generic Fluocinonide
------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Teligent, Inc., Perrigo Company Plc,
Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., and Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06638-
CMR  (E.D. Penn., December 27, 2016), arises from the Defendants'
and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to raise, fix, and maintain prices, allocate markets, and/or rig
bids for generic generic fluocinonide ("Fluocinonide").

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
              nurban@bm.net
              zcaplan@bm.net

         - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: "S.B." Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------
S.B., Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Defendant, was removed
from Superior Court of Fulton County, Case No. 2016CV283573, to
the U.S. District Court of Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
Case No. 1:17-cv-00075-RWS on January 9, 2017.

The Plaintiff alleges fraud claims.

Defendant Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a multinational
investor-owned healthcare services company based in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
   WEBB, KLASE&LEMOND, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: eadamwebb@hotmail.com

        - and -

   G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
   WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-9594
   Fax: (770) 444-0271
   Email: flemond@webbllc.com

        - and -

   Richard D. McCune, Esq.
   McCune, Wright, Arevalo, LLP
   3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
   Ontario, CA 91761
   Tel: (909) 557-1250
   Fax: (909) 557-1275
   Email: rdm@mccunewright.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Matthew L.J.D. Dowell, Esq.
   ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
   1201 West Peachtree Street
   Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
   Tel: (404) 881-7434
   Email: matt.dowell@alston.com

        - and -

   Samuel Reed Rutherford, Esq.
   William H. Jordan, Esq.
   ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
   One Atlantic Center, Suite 4900
   1201 West Peachtree Street
   Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
   Tel: (404) 881-4454
   Email: sam.rutherford@alston.com


TG THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of TG Therapeutics, Inc. ("TGTX") (NASDAQ:TGTX) between
September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016.  You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
USDC for the Southern District of New York. To get more
information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/tg-therapeutics

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, TGTX
misrepresented and/or omitted material information concerning its
GENUINE Phase III clinical trial for its proprietary combination
of drug therapies TG-1101 and TGR-1202.  The Phase III trial
consisted of two parts, Part I evaluating the effect of the
addition of TG-1101 to ibrutinib on overall response rate (ORR) in
approximately 200 patients, and Part II evaluating the effect of
the addition of TG-1101 to ibrutinib on progression-free survival
(PFS) in all study patients.

During the class period TGTX repeatedly assured investors as to
the efficacy and potential FDA approval of the treatment,
referring to it as a "best-in-class treatment."  Then on
October 13, 2016, TGTX announced that it would abandon Part II of
the study, thus annulling its filed Special Protocol Assessment
with the FDA and cutting enrollment and increasing the likelihood
that the FDA would not approve the combination treatment.

If you suffered a loss in TGTX you have until March 7, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


THERANOS INC: Sacks 155 Employees Amidst Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Alicia McElhaney at The Street reports is "re-engineering
operations" the "conscious uncoupling" of 2017?

No, this isn't another feel-good term for divorce hatched by
Gwenyth Paltrow and Chris Martin or a clip from some hair-brained
tweet at an automaker from our President-elect. No, its the latest
spin from one the most talked about healthcare companies of the
past two years: Theranos Inc.

Theranos, headed by CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes said Friday,
Jan. 6, it "has identified a core team of 220 professionals to
execute on its business plans, and informed 155 employees that
their positions have been eliminated."

The announcement, which came headlined with the words "Company Re-
engineers Operations" is the latest installment in the on-going
fall from grace of the blood testing company that has once been
valued as high as $9 billion.

The company had promised one drop blood testing but it was proven
that the testing process was sloppy, and likely wouldn't provide
accurate results.

The company is currently the subject of two class action lawsuits
filed at the end of May against the company after the Wall Street
Journal raised questions about the startup's testing legitimacy.
Walgreens Boots Alliance(WBA) which ended its relationship with
Theranos in June, is a co-defendant in a one of the class action
suits and also filed a separate, $140 million suit in November.

The $140 million is the same amount Walgreens initially invested
in Theranos back in 2010.

Partners Fund Management, a hedge fund based in San Francisco,
filed a lawsuit against Theranos on Oct. 10.

The fund alleged Theranos used a "series of lies" to gain $100
million in investment, as originally reported by The Wall Street
Journal.

Little information is available publicly on Theranos' financials,
as the company is privately held.

However, the company noted in its recent release that intends on
continuing to work on its miniLab, which aims to test for Zika
virus with a drop of blood. However, some experts are skeptical of
whether this technology will actually work.


TRIBUNE CO: Judge Dismisses Claims Against Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Tribune Co. shareholders are off the hook in multidistrict
litigation accusing them of cashing out on billions of dollars in
stock ahead of the company's bankruptcy.

Southern District Judge Richard Sullivan dismissed claims against
shareholders who cashed out in a 2007 leveraged buyout (LBO) that
was quickly followed by the media giant's bankruptcy in 2008.
The decision by the judge in In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance
Litigation, 11-md-2296, prevents the Tribune's litigation trustee,
Marc Kirschner, from clawing back some of the $8 billion paid to
shareholders in exchange for their shares in the buyout
orchestrated by Sam Zell and his Equity Group Investments.
Sullivan held Mr. Kirschner failed to plausibly allege that
Tribune directors who greenlighted the LBO acted with an intent to
defraud creditors with bankruptcy looming.

"The court is highly reluctant to infer scienter on the board's
part simply because it entered a risky transaction at a time the
Tribune was struggling," he said.

Judge Sullivan is overseeing the multidistrict litigation -- the
result of the 2011 consolidation of 74 federal and state cases
filed across the country involving some 5,000 defendants
consisting of Tribune directors, officers, financial advisers and
shareholders.

The company's reorganization plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy
court in July 2012, and the unsecured creditors' claims were
transferred to Mr. Kirschner.

Judge Sullivan in 2013 dismissed individual creditors' state-law
fraudulent conveyance -- a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit and currently the subject of a
petition for a writ of certiorari.

On the federal claims, Mr. Kirschner argued the Tribune board,
which had designated a seven-member board of independent directors
to assess the LBO, acted with fraudulent intent that could be
imputed to shareholders.

He also claimed the intent of individual officers, including
Tribune CEO and chair of the seven-member board, Dennis
FitzSimons, could be imputed to the corporation.

But on Jan. 6, Judge Sullivan found Mr. Kirschner failed to plead
sufficient facts to show the directors "possessed actual intent to
hinder, delay or defraud Tribune's creditors" or that officers
manipulated the board or controlled it on a key issue -- an
evaluation of the company's solvency conducted for the Tribune by
the company Valuation Research.

"The trustee's multilayered imputation theory -- which is entirely
contingent on the nonfeasance of both an unwitting intermediary,
Valuation Research, and an arguably negligent but by no means
supine board -- would undermine Congress' policy of protecting
securities markets by introducing substantial uncertainty to the
law governing fraudulent conveyance claims," he said.

The trustee failed to adequately allege indications of fraud," and
"failed to raise a plausible -- let alone strong-inference" the
directors had a motive and opportunity to defraud the creditors or
were guilty of "conscious misbehavior or recklessness."

Mr. Kirschner is represented by attorneys with four law firms:
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman;
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber; and
Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe.

The shareholder defendants were represented by D. Ross Martin --
Ross.Martin@ropesgray.com -- and Joshua Sturm --
Joshua.Sturm@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray -- liaison counsel
to the executive committee.


TRUEVISIONS: May Face Lawsuit Due to Cancellations of TV Channels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bangkok Posts reports that while regulators continue to press
TrueVisions to improve compensation to subscribers after
cancelling six popular pay-TV channels, some customers have taken
to an online "crowd-suing" platform in hopes in hopes of pursuing
a class-action lawsuit.

As of 5pm, January 7, more than 1,000 people had signed up to
initiate the litigation against the pay-TV operator at Fongdi.com,
which promises free service for class-action consumers.

On its sign-up page, the law consultant startup said it was
seeking to demand two things: fee cuts for subscribers who do not
cancel and compensation for those who do.

"TrueVisions cancelled the channels without informing the
subscribers in writing 30 days before the change. This is in
violation of the 2013 National Broadcasting and Telecommunications
Commission (NBTC) regulation on pay-TV service standards," it
said.

"TrueVisions told its subscribers about the cancellations on Dec
29, 2016 while the channels were removed on Jan 1, 2017. The move
took advantage of viewers. Besides, the notification was made
through the media, not in writing to each customer."

Most customers only learned of the change when an NBTC
commissioner revealed it to the media. After reportedly failing to
reach an agreement on higher fees sought by HBO, home to Game of
Thrones and other popular fare, TrueVisions cancelled HBO and five
affiliated channels: HBO Hits, HBO Signature, HBO Family, Red by
HBO, and Cinemax.

The cancellation notice took the form of a screen crawler, in the
same format the company uses to inform viewers of routine
maintenance outages.

The cancelled channels were replaced with seven channels. Warner
TV, Sony Channel, Paramount, Fox Action Movies, Celestial Classic
Movies and Food Network HD went on the air on Jan 1 while True
Films HD 2 will go live in March.

To date, TrueVisions has offered an upgrade of the packages of
300,000 affected subscribers by one step for a month, and 1,000
True Reward bonus points to the most affected group, those on the
Platinum package.

Fongdi.com said the remedial measures offered by the operator were
inadequate and unfair.

"The seven substitute channels are of lower in quality than the
six cancelled ones, which TrueVision had used to promote sales,"
it said.

"The proposal to upgrade the package by one step for 30 days is
also unfair because the operator has not reduced the service
quality for just 30 days but until the remaining contract terms
expire.

"An offer of 1,000 True reward points to its Platinum package
viewers is not what they want. If the service quality is lower, so
should the fee." The website plans to demand fee reductions for
subscribers in proportion to the value of lost channels, possibly
200 to 500 baht a month for the Platinum package.

It will also seek to demand that TrueVisions pay a fine in the
form of payments to subscribers who cancel, possibly the
equivalent of one month's fees.

Fongdi.com founder Peerapat Foithong told VoiceTV that the website
was not set up for this case alone.

"It was online before this case but this is the first one that
affects many people, including me," he said.

The NBTC, meanwhile, plans to meet with TrueVisions executives and
customers on January 10 in hopes of reaching a multally acceptable
solution.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suva Says Must Pay Social Security for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Johnson, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber has been
dealt another blow in its long-running battle over the employment
status of its drivers, with a Swiss insurance agency ruling that
the drivers are workers for which the company must pay social
security.

The mobile cab-hailing app company had argued that its drivers are
freelance contractors, but Swiss public sector insurer Suva found
that they should be classified as staff because they have to
comply with Uber rules and have no control over prices or payment
terms, broadcaster SRF reports.  Uber has said that it may now
contest the decision in the courts.

Uber has faced multiple fines, legal and regulatory actions across
the United States and Europe over its business model, and in
October lost a landmark lawsuit brought by a U.K. trade union on
behalf of two of its drivers.

The London employment tribunal ruled that the drivers should be
classified as workers, rather than self-employed, meaning they are
now entitled to workers' rights, including paid vacation and rest
breaks, and must also be paid the national minimum wage, which
doesn't apply to freelancers.

Uber, which was represented by DLA Piper, has said it will appeal
the ruling.

The San Francisco-based company is facing similar claims in the
United States and agreed to pay up to $100 million to end a class
action suit over the employment status of drivers.  But the
settlement was rejected by a federal judge in August.

That dispute is now set for arbitration after Uber's U.S. legal
team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher successfully appealed a 2015
ruling that voided the company's arbitration agreements. The
decision was overturned by a federal appeals court in September.

Uber is also currently involved in a hugely significant case
before the European Court of Justice -- the EU's top court --
which will determine whether Uber is a transportation company or a
digital service.

If the court decides that Uber is a transportation company, it
will be subject to much tighter regulation and could even see some
of its services banned by certain EU countries.  The company is
being represented by Spanish firm Cuatrecasas, Goncalves Pereira.
A ruling is not expected until March 2017 at the earliest.


UBS FINANCIAL: FRCP Rule 23 Certification Requirements Analyzed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lazarini, Esq., of Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, in an
article for JDSupra, analyzed a putative class action case that
posed whether common questions of law or fact predominate on the
reliance element of Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims.  The court
concluded that they do not, relying on the threshold requirements
set forth in FRCP 23(a) and (b): numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and superiority, each of which must exist for class
certification.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator
(SLC).  The full text of the analysis is below and used with
permission from the publication.

Roman vs. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, No. 12-1663
(D. P.R., 11/22/16)

*FRCP 23 (a) and (b) set out four threshold requirements for class
certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
superiority, each of which must exist for class certification.
**Where individual issues of reliance predominate over common
issues, class certification should be denied.

Following multiple procedural events in this putative class action
involving UBS' Puerto Rico Bond Funds (the "Funds"), the Court
adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that
class certification should be denied because individual issues of
reliance predominate over common ones.  On Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, the Court explains its prior order.  Plaintiffs
alleged that UBS manipulated demand for the Funds, controlled the
secondary market in which the Funds traded, and favored reducing
its inventory of the Funds over the interests of its clients, all
while UBS' financial advisors touted the Funds as safe.  These
fraud allegations, the Court explains, are based on alleged
affirmative acts, as opposed to alleged "omissions" of material
facts, and bring into focus whether common questions of law or
fact predominate on the reliance element of Plaintiffs' Section
10(b) claims.

The Court concludes that they do not.  First, Plaintiffs conceded
that they could not rely on the fraud-on-the-market presumption of
reliance, because the Funds were not traded on a public exchange
and did not trade in an efficient market. See Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011) (see SLA 2015-45) and
Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573
U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014) (see SLA 2014-24) (both
discussing the fraud-on-the-market theory).

Next, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' claimed entitlement to an
Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance for Defendants' failure to
disclose their alleged fraud. See Affiliated Ute Citizens of the
State of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) (finding a
presumption of reliance where defendants failed to disclose
material facts in the face of a duty to disclose).  The Court
acknowledges that any fraudulent scheme involves some degree of
concealment, but explains that courts have consistently limited
Affiliated Ute to "omissions" cases so as not to allow the
presumption to overwhelm the reliance requirement in cases
involving affirmative acts.  Here, the Court concludes, because
Plaintiffs' theory of liability is built on Defendants' alleged
affirmative acts, questions surrounding each putative class
member's reliance -- based on his or her knowledge of and
experience in the market, investment objectives, and information
about the Funds obtained from his or her financial advisor --
overwhelm any common issues and require denial of the request for
class certification.


UMTH LAND: "Fannin" Suit Remanded to Delaware Court of Chancery
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned, DAVID C. FANNIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UMTH
LAND DEVELOPMENT L.P., et al., Defendants, and UNITED DEVELOPMENT
FUNDING III L.P., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 16-641-SLR (D.
Del.).

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on July 7, 2016. Plaintiffs assert their claims
in their capacity as holders of units of limited partnership
interests (LP Units) in United Development Funding III L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership. Plaintiffs assert the following
claims in their complaint: derivative and class claims for breach
of fiduciary duty; a derivative claim for waste; derivative and
class claims for breach of the operative partnership agreement
(the UDF III Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, or Partnership Agreement); and derivative and class
claims for unjust enrichment for the profits obtained from the
breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On July 27, 2016, several of the defendants filed a notice of
removal to the court based solely on the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to remand on August 26, 2016
asserting that CAFA's grant of federal subject matter jurisdiction
does not extend to the instant class action, because the action
"'solely involves' claims that are within the plain meaning of two
of the CAFA jurisdictional exceptions in 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(9)" and should be remanded to the Court of Chancery.

Defendants ground their opposition to remand on an overly broad
reading of the complaint and an overly narrow interpretation of
the exceptions.

In her Memorandum dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/T6ADUr from Leagle.com, Judge Robinson concluded
that it lacks jurisdiction over the action under CAFA because
plaintiffs' class action solely involves claims that fall within
the internal affairs and securities exceptions to CAFA.

Lucille S. Fannin, et al. are represented by Robert J. Kriner,
Jr., Esq. -- RobertKriner@chimicles.com -- A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
-- ZN@chimicles.com -- Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Esq. --
TiffanyCramer@chimicles.com -- and -- Vera Gerrit Belger, Esq. --
VeraGerrity@Chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP

UMTH Land Development L.P., et. al are represented by Steven L.
Caponi, Esq. -- steven.caponi@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP


UTILIMAP CORP: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Martinez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Utilimap Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Cipriano Martinez, et al. v. Utilimap Corp.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00310-JPG-DGW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Cipriano Martinez, et al. v.
Utilimap Corp., Case No. 16-4211, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the
Appellant's brief is due on or before January 31, 2017.

District Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois granted the plaintiffs'
motion to confirm the arbitration clause construction award and
stayed the case in the case captioned, CIPRIANO MARTINEZ and
PATRICIO DONES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UTILIMAP CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-
CV-310-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Cipriano Martinez and Patricio Dones worked as an at-
will employee for Utilimap, a full-service utility inspection
company, as an hourly laborer in the Ground Line Treatment
Division for about two years. In their work for Utilimap, the
plaintiffs dug around utility poles, inspected them and treated
them with wood preservatives. They allege various wage and hour
violations of Illinois, Maryland and/or federal law. The
plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in March 2014, and in an order dated
June 25, 2015, the Court compelled the parties to arbitrate
pursuant to an arbitration agreement each plaintiff signed when he
first started working for Utilimap.

The parties ended up selecting Arbitrator Taren, who rendered a
"Partial Final Clause Construction Award" on June 10, 2016. That
award construed the arbitration agreement to include "an agreement
to submit to binding arbitration, 'any claims, demand or actions
based upon any claim for wages', including any class action wage
claims and any collective action wage claims."

The plaintiffs ask the Court to confirm the award, interpreting
the arbitration agreement to cover class and collective disputes
(for simplicity's sake, the Court will call these "class"
disputes). For its part, Utilimap argues that it never agreed in
the arbitration agreement to arbitrate class disputes and that
Arbitrator Taren exceeded the scope of the authority given to him
in the arbitration agreement by deciding the question, and
deciding it wrongly, to boot. It further argues that whether the
parties have agreed to class arbitration is a threshold question
of arbitrability for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/fM3tcZ from Leagle.com, Judge Gilbert held that
Arbitrator Taren appropriately looked to the agreement itself to
glean the parties' intentions. His analysis reflected a dutiful
interpretation of the arbitration agreement, whether it be right
or wrong, and did not exceed his authority. Arbitrator Taren's
interpretation is what the parties bargained for by entering into
the agreement to have an arbitrator decide the question, and the
Court will not frustrate those expectations by vacating his award.

The case, according to the District Judge, is stayed until
arbitration has been in accordance with the terms of the agreement
and the Court ordered Martinez and Dones to file a status report
in March 2017, and every September and March thereafter until the
arbitration is complete, and to file a final status report within
30 days of the completion of the arbitration.

Plaintiffs-Appellees CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and PATRICIO DONES are
represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          Eight Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

Defendant-Appellant UTILIMAP CORP. is represented by:

          Gary M. Smith, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          Facsimile: (314) 612-7623
          E-mail: gsmith@lewisrice.com


VANGUARD HOME: Appeals Ruling in "Davis" Overtime Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation, VHS of Illinois, Inc., Vanguard
Health Systems, Inc. and Vanguard Home Care, LLC have taken an
appeal from a court ruling in the case, SCHARMAINE DAVIS, on
behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VANGUARD HOME CARE, LLC, VHS OF
ILLINOIS, INC., and VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-7277 (N.D. Ill.).  The appeal was filed December 6,
2016, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Appellant's brief are due January 17, 2017.

Plaintiff Scharmaine Davis alleges in her class-action complaint
that Defendants have systematically wrongly classified her and
other similarly situated home health care clinicians as exempt
from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).
Further, Davis alleges that Defendants failed to keep accurate
records of the hours worked by Davis and other class members.
Davis' complaint thus pleads a typical FLSA action.

Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Compliance with Open Door and Fair Treatment Process and
Arbitration. According to the affidavit of Donna Sierzega McNally,
provided in support of the Defendants' Motion, all Vanguard
employees, including Davis, are subject to Vanguard's Tenet
Employee Handbook, which includes an "independent Open Door and
Fair Treatment Process (FTP)." McNally avers that Davis completed
an internal training module on the Handbook, and electronically
signed an acknowledgement statement on July 28, 2014.

Plaintiff contends that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Lewis v.
Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016) is controlling
and requires the denial of Defendants' Motion.

Defendants Vanguard Home Care, LLC, VHS of Illinois, Inc., and
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. contend that Lewis is inapplicable
because Davis does not challenge an arbitration clause alone
(presumably Vanguard would concede that Lewis would control if
that were the case) but challenges the entire Fair Treatment
Process (FTP).  Since Davis is attacking an entire dispute
resolution contract and not just an arbitration provision,
Vanguard argues, the court must grant the motion to dismiss in
favor of arbitration, and Davis must make her arguments about the
arbitration bar in Lewis before an arbitrator.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 22, 2016
available at https://is.gd/BXBCk0 from Leagle.com, District Judge
Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted in part Defendants' Motion.
Judge Gottschall concluded that Davis' claims under Lewis need not
be arbitrated for two reasons. First, unlike the contract in
Buckeye Check Cashing, the FTP document in the record includes no
delegation clause. Second, assuming for the sake of argument that
the FTP is a standalone arbitration contract, Davis does not seek
to invalidate the FTP process in its entirety by invoking Lewis.
The Court stayed the IMWL claims pending resolution of FLSA claim.

Scharmaine Davis is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      Teresa M. Becvar Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue,
      Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312)233-1550

Vanguard Home Care, LLC, et al. are represented by James N.
Boudreau, Esq. -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- and - Tiffany S. Fordyce,
Esq. -- fordycet@gtlaw.com - GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


VICTORY LAB: "Diego" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------
Nabor Diego, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated individuals
v. Victory Lab Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 16-030271-
CA-01, to the U.S. District Court of Southern District of Florida
(Miami) Case No. 1:17-cv-20063-FAM on January 6, 2017.

The Plaintiffs accused the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre
   Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC
   Court House Tower
   44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
   Miami, FL 33130
   Tel: (305) 416-5000
   Fax: (305) 416-5005
   Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrenz Fares, writing for JURIST, reports that lawyers
representing a German owner of a diesel-powered Volkswagen (VW)
[corporate website] vehicle equipped with a software that could
cheat emissions tests filed the first lawsuit seeking compensation
for damages on Jan. 3.  According to the Braunschweig district
court, the German firm MyRight filed on behalf of only a single VW
consumer effected by the scandal.  Although VW has paid damages to
535,000 US-based consumers, they have refused to do so in European
countries.  They cite differences in regulations as the basis for
this decision and have only offered technical remedies to European
consumers. Because Germany does not allow for American-style
class-action suits, the decision on the present case will serve as
a model for future litigation concerning other consumers seeking
damages against VW.  Should the current plaintiff succeed in his
individual suit, VW may see similar suits filed all over Europe.

VW is facing legal difficulty around the world over the emissions
scandal.  South Korea announced in December that it plans to fine
VW over false advertising.  In October a Spanish court ordered
Volkswagen to pay damages to a VW vehicle owner who purchased his
car in 2011.  A US judge approved a $14.7 billion settlement in
October between VW and the US Department of Justice, the Federal
Trade Commission, the state of California and car owners who filed
a class action lawsuit over the company's emissions scandal.  In
September a German court said VW faces over USD $8.2 billion in
damage claims from investors.  That same month, the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission sued VW and its local
subsidiary for misleading customers.  In August a district court
in Germany ruled that a collective complaint against VW may move
forward.  Like US-style class-action lawsuits, the collective
complaint was launched on behalf of multiple investors who lost
money following the diesel emissions cheating scandal. Last March
the US FTC filed suit against VW for false advertising.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: In Advanced Talks to Settle Emission Criminal Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and David McHugh, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the imminent criminal plea deal between Volkswagen and
U.S. prosecutors in an emissions-cheating scandal could be bad
news for one group of people: VW employees who had a role in the
deceit or subsequent cover-up.

VW on Jan. 10 disclosed that it is in advanced talks to settle the
criminal case by pleading guilty to unspecified charges and paying
$4.3 billion in criminal and civil fines, a sum far larger than
any recent case involving the auto industry.

It's likely that VW will agree to cooperate in the probe, turning
over documents and other information, said David M. Uhlmann, a
former chief of the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes
Section who is now a University of Michigan law professor.

"Companies often face the dilemma of whether to protect their
employees or cooperate with government investigations, but almost
always end up deciding in the company's best interest to share
what information they have," Mr. Uhlmann said.

Although VW's communications with lawyers may be exempt, emails
between employees and company executives should help prosecutors
reach as far up VW's organizational chart as the scandal went, he
said.  Prosecutors now have three witnesses giving them
information and have arrested Oliver Schmidt, VW's former head of
U.S. environmental compliance who dealt with the EPA and
California Air Resources Board after the scandal was uncovered.

The cooperation of witnesses and the company should help
investigators determine if the scandal went beyond VW's engineers,
Mr. Uhlmann said.  But extraditing any executives from Germany
would be a problem.

Volkswagen has admitted equipping diesel cars with sophisticated
software that turned on emissions controls when engines were being
tested by the Environmental Protection Agency, then turned them
off during normal driving.  The software, called a "defeat device"
because it defeated the emissions controls, improved engine
performance but spewed out harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40
times above the legal limit.

Volkswagen has reached a $15 billion civil settlement with
environmental authorities and car owners in the U.S. under which
it agreed to buy back up to 500,000 vehicles.  The company also
faces an investor lawsuit and criminal probe in Germany.  In all,
some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with the
software.

The criminal investigation likely will continue into the
administration of President-elect Donald Trump and attorney
general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions.  Mr. Uhlmann, who served under
Republican and Democratic attorneys general, doesn't think the new
administration will back off from the VW prosecution.

"All administrations want to be tough on crime, including
corporate crime," he said.  "I doubt the Trump administration will
be any different."

A draft of the VW settlement with the government calls for the
appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance and
control measures for three years.  The draft still must be
approved by Volkswagen's boards and U.S. courts.

The scandal was revealed in September 2015, when West Virginia
University tested on-road diesel emissions.  The EPA issued a
notice of violation, and VW apologized and brought in U.S. law
firm Jones Day to investigate.

If finalized, a $4.3 billion settlement would eclipse Toyota's
$1.2 billion penalty over unintended acceleration problems as well
as General Motors' $900 million payment to resolve a deadly
ignition-switch scandal.



VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ex-Compliance Head Arrested in Emissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger and Celia Ampel, writing for Corporate Counsel,
report that Oliver Schmidt, the head of Volkswagen Group's U.S.
regulatory compliance office during its emissions cheating
scandal, not only knew about the cheat device but told management
executives in Germany about it and was directed to continue the
scheme, according a complaint made public after Mr. Schmidt's
arrest in Florida.

The criminal complaint against him, unsealed in U.S. District
Court in Detroit on Jan. 9, accuses him of taking part in a
conspiracy to defraud the U.S., committing wire fraud, and
violating the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Mr. Schmidt, from Germany, is considered a flight risk and was
held without bond after making an initial appearance on Jan. 9 in
U.S. District Court in Miami.  He was scheduled to face a hearing
on Jan. 12 to remove him to Detroit where he can be fully
arraigned, unless the two sides agree to his removal before then.

He was represented at his court appearance on Jan. 9 by John
Couriel of white-collar boutique Kobre & Kim, and David Massey of
New York's Richards Kibbe & Orbe.  Mr. Massey, who is leading
Mr. Schmidt's defense, is a former assistant U.S. Attorney in
Manhattan.

Professor John James, founder and chairman emeritus of the Center
for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation at Pace
University, says it is the first U.S. criminal charge he is aware
of against a compliance officer outside the financial industry.
Volkswagen has admitted that it lied about cheating on the
emissions tests from around May 2006 to September 2015 for about
11 million diesel vehicles by using a software "defeat" device. It
agreed in June to pay $14.7 billion to resolve the federal and
California cases, but only the civil charges.

So the criminal investigation into the scandal is still ongoing.
One VW engineer pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy in September
in federal court in Detroit and is cooperating with prosecutors.

According to the complaint, Mr. Schmidt joined VW in 1997 as a
mechanical engineer.  He served as general manager of VW's
Engineering and Environmental Office in the U.S. from 2012 to
2015.

In that role Mr. Schmidt was "responsible for ensuring that the
vehicles built for sale within the U.S and Canadian markets fully
comply with the past, present and future air quality and fuel
economy government standards in both countries," according to an
online bio.

Mr. Schmidt learned of the emission problems in April 2014.  The
same day, according to the complaint, he emailed a colleague: "It
should first be decided whether we are honest.  If we are not
honest, everything stays as it is."  VW employees decided not to
disclose the "defeat" device to U.S. regulators.

A month later he emailed a VW executive and another employee about
the emission problems, noting "possible consequences/risks," the
complaint states, including "possible monetary penalties per
vehicle of up to $37,500 from the EPA [U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency]."

In March 2015, Mr. Schmidt was promoted to principal deputy of an
unnamed senior manager of VW, and he returned to VW headquarters
in Wolfsburg, Germany, "where he played a direct role in VW's
response to questions from U.S. regulators," according to a
Justice Department statement.

When U.S. regulators threatened not to certify VW vehicles for
sale in the U.S. in 2016 because of emissions questions, the
complaint says Schmidt and other employees met with unnamed
members of VW's executive management on July 27, 2015, in
Wolfsburg, Germany.  Mr. Schmidt and others briefed the executive
team on the defeat device and assured them that U.S. regulators
didn't know about it.  The executive team "authorized its
continued concealment," the complaint states.

It continues, "In the summer of 2015, Schmidt agreed to travel to
the United States to participate in direct conversations with U.S.
regulators in which he intended to, and did, deceive and mislead
U.S. regulators by offering reasons for the discrepancy other than
the fact that VW was intentionally cheating U.S. emissions tests,
in order to allow VW to continue to sell diesel vehicles in the
United States."

Mr. Schmidt and other employees continued to lie about the
emissions problems to regulators and to conceal the defeat device
until one employee admitted it in a meeting with California
regulators in September 2015, according to the document.

It remains to be seen if other VW executives will be charged in
the conspiracy.  The arrest of Mr. Schmidt came as the New York
Times reported the company was nearing a deal with the Justice
Department to resolve the criminal investigation against it for a
reported $2 billion.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Six Employees Indicted in Emissions Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Biesecker, Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The
Associated Press, report that six high-level Volkswagen employees
from Germany have been indicted in the U.S. in the automaker's
emissions-cheating scandal as prosecutors made good on efforts to
charge individuals in a corporate corruption case.

But bringing them to trial in the U.S. is another matter.

In announcing the federal charges and a corporate plea bargain by
Volkswagen, Justice Department prosecutors on Jan. 11 detailed a
large and elaborate scheme inside the German automaker to commit
fraud and then cover it up, with at least 40 employees allegedly
involved in destroying evidence.

The company agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay
$4.3 billion -- by far the biggest fine ever levied by the
government against an automaker.

"Volkswagen obfuscated, they denied and they ultimately lied,"
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said.

But prosecutors may have trouble bringing the executives to trial
in the U.S. German law generally bars extradition of the country's
citizens except within the European Union.  Privately, Justice
officials expressed little optimism that the five VW executives
still at large will be arrested, unless they surrender or travel
outside Germany.

Still, the criminal charges are a major breakthrough for a Justice
Department that been under pressure to hold individuals
accountable for corporate misdeeds ever since the 2008 financial
crisis.

U.S. authorities are still investigating just how high the scheme
went, and held out the possibility of charges against more VW
executives.

"We will continue to pursue the individuals responsible for
orchestrating this damaging conspiracy," Ms. Lynch said.

VW admitted installing software in diesel engines on nearly
600,000 VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles in the U.S. that activated
pollution controls during government tests and switched them off
in real-world driving.  The software allowed the cars to spew
harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit.

U.S. regulators confronted VW about the software after university
researchers discovered differences in testing and real-world
emissions.  Volkswagen at first denied the use of the so-called
defeat device but finally admitted it in September 2015.

Even after that admission, prosecutors said, company employees
were busy deleting computer files and other evidence.

The fines easily eclipse the $1.2 billion penalty levied against
Toyota in 2014 over unintended acceleration in its cars.  VW also
agreed to pay an additional $154 million to California for
violating its clean air laws.

The penalties bring the cost of the scandal to VW in the United
States to nearly $20 billion, not counting lost sales and damage
to the automaker's reputation.  Volkswagen previously reached a
$15 billion civil settlement with U.S. environmental authorities
and car owners under which it agreed to repair or buy back as many
as a half-million of the affected vehicles.

Although the cost is staggering and would bankrupt many companies,
VW has the money, with $33 billion in cash on hand.

As for why the fine was so big, "the premeditation here was very
significant and that was at a very high level in the company,"
said Leslie Caldwell, an assistant U.S. attorney general.

"Lower-level people actually expressed concern along the way about
the fact these defeat devices were being used and questioned
whether they should be used. And higher-up people decided to use
them," Ms. Caldwell said.  "Volkswagen also lied to the regulators
and the Department of Justice once our investigation had started.
That's what distinguishes this."

Volkswagen pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice
and importing vehicles by using false statements.  Under the
agreement, VW must cooperate in the investigation and let an
independent monitor oversee its compliance for three years.

The six supervisors indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit
were accused of lying to environmental regulators or destroying
computer files containing evidence.

All six are German citizens, and five remained in Germany.  The
only one under arrest was Oliver Schmidt, who was seized in Miami
during a visit to the U.S.

Mr. Schmidt was in charge of VW's compliance with U.S.
environmental regulations.  Those indicted also included two
former chiefs of Volkswagen engine development and the former head
of quality management and product safety. Prosecutors said one
supervised 10,000 employees.

All six were charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by making
false statements to regulators and the public. Three were also
charged with fraud and clean-air violations.

VW also faces an investor lawsuit and a criminal investigation in
Germany.  In all, some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped
with the software.

Here are the executives' names, titles and any additional charges.

Charged with conspiracy:

  -- Jens Hadler, 50. Head of Volkswagen engine development, 2007-
2011.

Charged with wire fraud:

  -- Bernd Gottweis, 69. Head of quality management and product
safety, 2007-2014.

Charged with clean air violations:

-- Richard Dorenkamp. 68; Head of VW engines' after-treatment
department, 2003-2013. Led the team of engineers that developed
the first diesel engine designed to meet U.S. emissions standards.

Charged with wire fraud and clean air violations:

-- Heinz-Jakob Neusser, 56. Head of Volkswagen engine
development, 2011-2013; head of VW brand development, 2013-2015.

-- Oliver Schmidt, 48. Head of VW's Engineering and Environmental
Office in Michigan, 2012-2015.

-- Jurgen Peter, 59. Engineer in the quality management and
product safety group, 1990-present.


WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Quiles" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sundel Quiles, Victoria J. Martin, James M. Shea, Angela Cox, and
George J. Bray Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Walmart, Case
No. 2:16-cv-09479-SDW-LDW (D.N.J, December 27, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate over 150 retail locations in New Jersey and
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Monaco III, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MONACO, PC
      1317 Morris Avenue
      Union, NJ 07083
      Telephone: (212) 486 4244
      Facsimile: (646) 807-4749
      E-mail: jmonaco@monaco-law.com

         - and -

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY  10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com


WATTS REGULATOR: Inks Settlements to Solve Floodsafe Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Watts Regulator Co. and Plaintiffs announced two settlements to
resolve nationwide class action lawsuits related to Watts Water
Heater and FloodSafe brand connectors that allegedly could fail
and cause water damage.  Watts has stated that it believes there
is nothing wrong with these connectors.  The Classes include those
that owned or leased a residence or other structure located in the
United States containing a Watts Water Heater or FloodSafe
connector after November 4, 2008.

If the settlements are approved by the judge presiding over the
lawsuits, a fund will be established that will be distributed to
eligible Watts customers in the Classes.  Customers who have
experienced water damage from leaks will be able to make a claim
to be reimbursed (from the fund) for up to 25% of their documented
property damage. Customers whose connectors have not leaked may
replace these Watts connectors and file a claim to be reimbursed
$10 for up to four Watts connectors they replace.

The total settlement amount of $14 million will pay class members
for replacement of Watts Water Heater and FloodSafe connectors and
reimbursement of water damage repairs, as detailed in the
Settlement Agreements, and will cover notice, settlement
administration expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses as
ordered by the Court. The Settlements are subject to court
approval, which will be the subject of a hearing currently
scheduled on April 12, 2017. Also, class members have until March
7, 2017, either to exclude themselves from the litigation or
object to the Settlements.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Race Discrimination Class Action for $35.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports that Wells Fargo
Advisors has reached a $35.5 million settlement with a group of
African-American financial advisers who claimed the firm
discriminated against them due to their race.

The group of six brokers, with lead plaintiff Lance Slaughter, are
joined by 325 confirmed African American brokers or trainees at
the firm, said Linda Friedman, the attorney for the class
plaintiffs.  There could be another potential 200 class members,
depending on how those advisers and trainees identify their race,
she said.

Federal judge Harry D. Leinenweber has to sign off on the
agreement, which was filed on Dec. 30 in U.S. district court, the
northern district of Illinois.  Mr. Slaughter filed his claim in
September 2013.

"This is a very significant outcome, based on the number of people
and the size of the fund," Ms. Friedman said.  She said the amount
each Wells Fargo adviser will eventually receive will not be based
on a set formula but rather an assessment of individual claims.

In the most recent amended complaint, the Wells Fargo advisers
alleged that the firm provided widely different compensation and
business opportunities to advisers based on their race.

"African Americans are underrepresented both as financial advisers
and in management and executive positions at Wells Fargo, and are
paid substantially less than their counterparts who are not
African American," according to the complaint.  "These disparities
result from Wells Fargo's systemic, international race
discrimination and from policies and practices that serve no
reasonable business purpose yet have a disparate impact on African
Americans."

"We do not agree with the claims in the lawsuit, but believe that
putting this matter behind us is in the best interests of our team
members, clients and investors," wrote Wells Fargo spokeswoman
Helen Bow in a statement."  Resolving this matter allows Wells
Fargo Advisors to continue to focus on providing a diverse and
inclusive work environment where all of our team members can
thrive through industry leading recruiting, coaching, leadership
and business development practices.  We will also update our
policies and procedures to provide greater opportunities for
inclusiveness."

Chief among the claims was that African American advisers at Wells
Fargo have been denied access to potentially lucrative client
account referrals because they were segregated from teams that
typically land referred business.

"Wells Fargo employs company-wide teaming, account distribution
and territory and banking support assignment policies and
practices that deny African Americans the same business
opportunities as employees who are not African American,"
according to the complaint.  "These policies and practices exclude
African Americans from lucrative teams and client account
distributions and segregate the firm's work force."

Wells Fargo has 15,000 financial advisers in 1,375 offices in the
United States.  The settlement covers all African Americans
advisers who are or were employees with the firm from September
2009 to the end of last year.

Mr. Slaughter is based in the Washington, D.C., area and has been
affiliated with Wells Fargo Advisors, and its predecessor,
Wachovia Securities, since 2005.

The brokerage industry over the past ten to 15 years has seen a
steady stream of racial discrimination claims, most notably a
long-running and highly publicized case that resulted in a $160
million settlement with Merrill Lynch in 2013.

Along with payments to brokers, the settlement also calls for
Wells Fargo to create a number of programs focused on African
American advisers.

Those include: recruiting, with the firm devoting resources with
the primary goal of recruiting African American advisers and
trainees; creating two coaching positions to work with those
advisers and trainees; and establishing African-American focus
group to provide feedback to leadership teams that will focus on
ideas and initiatives to increase the number of African-American
advisers along with their productivity, retention and
opportunities for teaming.

The settlement also calls for a $500,000 fund for African American
advisers to fund business development events or activities over a
four year period.


WELLS FARGO: Hearing on $35MM Settlement Set for Jan. 24
--------------------------------------------------------
Janet Levaux, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
$35.5 million settlement between Wells Fargo & Co. and a group of
African-American brokers is set to go before a Chicago federal
judge on Jan. 24.

The plaintiffs alleged in the complaint, filed in 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that Wells
Fargo "substantially" underpaid African-American financial
advisors in management and executive positions.

The class-action settlement "provides comprehensive programmatic
relief designed to increase the representation of and
opportunities for African-American financial advisors and FA
trainees, as well as substantial monetary relief for settlement
class members," lawyers for the plaintiffs told the court last
month.

Suzanne Bish -- sbish@sfltd.com -- of Stowell & Friedman, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs, told ThinkAdvisor that the amount "is larger
than that of many other settlements, [since] these are high-paying
good jobs and involved high rates of attrition and big gaps in pay
-- with significant disparities in earnings between white and
African-American financial advisors who had substantial economic
losses."

The advisors and licensed trainees affected by the suit include
those employed by Wells Fargo's Private Client Group or WFA's
bank-brokerage channel from September 2009 through December 2016.
The number of advisors benefitting from the settlement could top
400 as more find out about it, Ms. Bish said.

Wells Fargo said in a statement that the San Francisco-based bank
disagrees with the claims in the suit "but believe that putting
this matter behind us is in the best interests of our team
members, clients and investors."

"Resolving this matter allows Wells Fargo Advisors to continue to
focus on providing a diverse and inclusive work environment where
all of our team members can thrive through industry leading
recruiting, coaching, leadership and business development
practices," the Wells Fargo statement said.  "We will also update
our policies and procedures to provide greater opportunities for
inclusiveness."

Wells Fargo, according to the terms of the deal, will set up a
$500,000 fund to support affected advisors over the next four
years and help them grow their practices.

Wells Fargo also said it will have a recruiting contact whose
primary responsibility will be the recruitment of African American
financial advisors and trainees.  The company will create two
coaching positions to help African American financial advisors
build relationships and boost productivity.

"There's always a need for success stories," Ms. Bish said.  If
the policies and procedures laid out by the Wells Fargo settlement
work effectively, "they could catch on elsewhere." This would mean
that organizations "would have the potential to have talent that
is now underrepresented in the industry."

A preliminary approval hearing is set for Jan. 24 in front of U.S.
District Judge Harry Leinenweber.


WELLS FARGO: "Varga" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Linda Moravec Varga, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC641227, was removed from the Los Angeles County
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-09650 to the
proceeding.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and insurance services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WILLIAM HILL: Spanish Gamblers Mull Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Intelligence reports that a consumer group representing
Spanish gamblers is threatening to launch class action lawsuits
against William Hill and bwin for discriminating against winning
players.

Consumer group Muebete claims that the operators target successful
bettors through account closures and restrictions on their betting
activity, simply for winning more often than they lose.  It also
accuses the Spanish gambling regulator of offering little or no
protection to players who are "systematically discriminated
against".


WOODLAND DIRECT: Faces "Gamez" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodland Direct Inc.
The case is entitled as Joshua Gamez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Woodland
Direct Inc., a Michigan corporation, and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09656 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2016).

Woodland Direct is doing business in the hearth industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


WV AMERICAN: Efforts to Finalize Water Crisis Settlement Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston Gazette Mail reports that attorneys for Kanawha Valley
residents and businesses still are working with lawyers for
West Virginia American Water Company and Eastman Chemical to
finalize documents concerning the $151 million settlement of the
class-action lawsuit over the January 2014 water crisis, according
to the latest word from the federal judge presiding in the case.

In a brief order filed on Jan. 6, U.S. District Judge John
Copenhaver noted the "ongoing efforts to finalize details of the
settlement agreement and commit the settlement protocol to writing
for consideration by the court."  The order was issued following
the latest in a series of closed-door meeting between Judge
Copenhaver and the lawyers in the case.

The parties reached the settlement in late October, and provided
the court with "term sheets" that summarized the related deals
between residents and businesses affected by the water crisis and
the defendants in the case, West Virginia American and Eastman
Chemical.

Because the settlement hasn't been finalized, the judge has kept a
trial date for the case on his calendar, and the Jan. 6 order
delayed that trial date again, from Jan. 10 until Feb. 7.

The settlement is aimed at providing compensation to thousands of
local residents and businesses who lost use of their drinking
water for up to a week following the Jan. 9, 2014, chemical spill
at Freedom Industries.  Exact details of how the money will be
distributed have not yet been announced, and those details are
part of what will be included in the settlement documents yet to
be submitted to Judge Copenhaver.

Potential members of the class of residents and businesses will
eventually have an opportunity to review the settlement, and to
object to its terms or "opt out" of the deal.  The settlement is
not final until it is approved by Judge Copenhaver.


XYTEX CORP: Judge Tosses Most Claims in Sperm Bank Donor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that a Fulton County
judge who in 2015 tossed out a suit claiming a sperm bank had
misled clients about the psychiatric, educational and criminal
background of a sperm donor has dismissed the bulk of a similar
suit filed in 2016, writing as he did before that the assertions
of product liability, fraud, breach of warranty and other claims
were all essentially claims for "wrongful birth" -- a tort not
recognized under Georgia law.

In a Dec. 15 order, Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney dismissed
10 of the 11 claims against Xytex Corp. over allegations that a
donor touted as a Ph.D. in neuroscience with a 160 IQ was in fact
a college dropout with a felony record and diagnosis of
schizophrenia.  The only surviving claim is a nondamages "specific
performance" claim demanding that Xytex provide information about
the donor -- information that Xytex has argued the plaintiffs
allege they already have.

The suit was one of at least a dozen Xytex is facing in the U.S.
and Canada since the donor was identified as Chris Aggeles in 2014
and mothers of children he sired discovered the details of his
background through online searches.

None of the complaints in those cases indicate that, to date, any
of the children have shown any signs of schizophrenia, but their
attorneys have argued that such signs generally appear later in
life.  In addition to seeking relief for the emotional damages
they have suffered after learning of Mr. Aggeles' background,
parents have argued that they will be required to monitor their
children for signs of mental abnormality and treat any such
symptoms before they develop into schizophrenia.

As he did in the earlier case, Judge McBurney seemed sympathetic
to the claims of the two Jane Doe plaintiffs, writing that they
"rightly highlight the public policy issues raised by this
litigation case.  Advancements in science have again -- as they
always do -- outstripped advancements in the law."

"An action for 'wrongful birth' arises when parents make a claim
that, had they been fully informed of the fetus's condition, the
birth would not have occurred," Judge McBurney wrote.

While the plaintiffs "insist their suit is not for wrongful birth"
but for the negligence and other claims, Judge McBurney wrote,
"simply calling one tort by another name does not transform that
tort into the other."

On Dec. 28, Judge McBurney issued a certificate of immediate
review, allowing the plaintiffs to seek an appeal at the Court of
Appeals.

FisherBroyles partner Ted Lavender --
ted.lavender@fisherbroyles.com -- who represents Xytex, declined
to discuss the order in detail.

"These are basically the same claims that were dismissed in the
first case," said Mr. Lavender.  "Judge McBurney has dismissed all
the claims with money damages attached to them."

A defense filing described the specific performance claim seeking
information about Mr. Aggeles' background and medical history as
an effort by the plaintiffs "to be told about purported
information, even though the filing of the lawsuit proves they
have already been made aware of the very information they claim to
want to be told."

The plaintiffs' local counsel, James McDonough III --
JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- and W. Lewis Garrison Jr. --
wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- of Henninger Garrison Davis, referred
questions to San Francisco attorney Nancy Hersh, lead counsel in
several of the Xytex cases, who did not immediately respond.

The same lawyers represented the plaintiffs in the case
Judge McBurney dismissed in 2015.  The Court of Appeals declined
to hear a challenge in that case because the notice of appeal was
received too late.


YAHOO! INC: Verizon Shareholders Raise Concern Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Young, writing for Salon, reports that by the end of March,
Yahoo is supposed to enter a new phase of its 23-year existence
through its acquisition by wireless carrier Verizon. But last
month's revelation that a billion Yahoo user accounts had their e-
privacy compromised in what is being called the biggest-ever theft
of personal data has raised questions about whether the $4.8
billion deal will actually go through.

Even before Yahoo announced the security incident there were
already reports Verizon was seeking a discount on the previously
agreed-upon price after Yahoo disclosed in September a separate
breach, news that raised concern among Verizon shareholders.

So what now?

"Verizon needs a major concession to placate its shareholders,"
John Colley, a professor of strategy and leadership at Warwick
Business School in the U.K., told Salon by email.  "However I
suspect they are keen to persist with the original strategy
despite much criticism from shareholders."

If Verizon were to pull out of the deal, it's unclear who else
would want Yahoo.  Buyers, including private equity firms,
generally avoid companies with potential legal liabilities, and
Yahoo is facing the prospect of major class action lawsuits.
Because of the sheer number of potential plaintiffs, the
settlements could be huge.

If the deal collapses, Mr. Colley says Yahoo would likely pivot to
cost-cutting, much like Twitter, which announced layoffs and
office closures in October, as the microblogging site struggles
with anemic subscriber growth.

Verizon didn't respond to Salon's request for comment about
progress toward closing the deal, but Marni Walden, Verizon's
executive vice president, was noncommittal during an event with
investors on Jan. 5.  "I can't sit here today and say with
confidence one way or the other [whether the acquisition will go
through] because we still don't know," she said, according to the
Wall Street Journal.

Tim Armstrong, head of Verizon subsidiary AOL, said on Jan. 5 on
CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" he remains "hopeful" the deal will
close.

Verizon acquired AOL last year in a $4.4 billion deal.  The
carrier wants to buy Yahoo and then merge it with AOL (whose media
assets include the Huffington Post, TechCrunch and Engadget) to
create an enticing third option for digital advertisers, behind
Google and Facebook.  But that plan was potentially derailed after
the security breaches were disclosed. Verizon executives
reportedly feel that Yahoo's value has been diminished by the
hacks, which could adversely impact future growth in user
accounts.

Yahoo said in December a massive data breach in 2013 exposed the
private information of more than 1 billion user accounts,
including names, dates of birth and passwords.  The announcement
came after Yahoo disclosed in September a separate breach of at
least 500 million user accounts in 2014 by a "state sponsored
actor."  The breach announced in September was discovered during a
broad security investigation that began a month earlier.  The
second breach was uncovered after Yahoo reviewed data files
provided by law enforcement officials in November.

Yahoo warned in its last quarterly report filed in November that
Verizon "may seek to terminate . . . or renegotiate the terms" of
the acquisition as a result of the security breach announced in
September.  "We are confident in Yahoo's value and we continue to
work towards integration with Verizon," a Yahoo spokesperson told
Salon by email, a stance the company has maintained since the
second security breach was announced on Dec. 14.

The breaches add to Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's woes.  The former
Google executive took command of Yahoo in 2012 with hopes she
would revive the once dominant Internet search giant, which lost
significant ground to Google over the years.  But after four years
at Yahoo's helm, Ms. Mayer has failed to improve the company's
financial position and market share. S he's been lambasted for
many of her decisions, including the $1 billion acquisition of
blogging startup Tumblr, which after three years hasn't generated
significant cash flow.  It's unclear how much longer Mayer will
remain at Yahoo's helm if the Verizon deal goes through -- or even
if it doesn't.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Zimmer
Biomet Holdings, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
in advance of the January 31, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Zimmer during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The complaint states that during the Class Period, Zimmer made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations,
and prospects. The complaint alleges the following: that issues
within the supply chain caused a decline in order fulfillment,
particularly within the knee and hip portfolios; that, because of
this, Zimmer would not realize its revenues and profit as expected
and; that as a result of the above, the Company's statements
regarding its business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 31, 2016, the Company sent a press release reporting
third quarter 2016 financial results. Zimmer reported net sales of
$1.83 billion, and lowered guidance for the full year 2016 at
$7.630 billion to $7.650 billion, a decline from the $7.68 billion
to $7.715 billion estimated in July. Zimmer claims weak sales are
due to a change in the supply chain, leading to a lack of
available implants and instrument sets during the quarter.

In a phone meeting with investors after the above release, the
Company stated: "Third quarter revenue was below our expectations,
primarily due to execution issues within our large joint supply
chain, which led to a degradation in order fulfillment rates late
in the quarter as well as our performance in dental . . .  As a
consequence, we underestimated demand for certain key cross-sell
brands within our existing customer base, leading to a depletion
of our safety stocks and also affecting our ability to capitalize
on new customer opportunities."

Shares of Zimmer fell $17.15 per share, or nearly 14%, to close on
October 31, 2016 at $105.40 per share, causing investors harm.


* DOL Initiative May Help Small Businesses Avert Legal Woes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kendall, writing for Daily Herald, reports that remember the
U.S. Department of Labor's initiative that would have changed
overtime rules -- and costs -- in December if a federal judge in
Texas had not halted implementation in late November?

Although either a final court review or action from the Trump
administration could kill the DOL initiative, attorney Jennifer
Adams Murphy -- jemurphy@wesselssherman.com -- says the process so
far may have saved small businesses from legal difficulties.

"Many employers discovered they were not in compliance with
existing (overtime) classification regulations when they sought
counsel as to the DOL changes," Ms. Murphy emailed when I asked
her about potential 2017 legal trouble spots.

"Misclassification is a very costly mistake (with class action
exposure) that can usually be avoided."

Ms. Murphy is senior attorney and a shareholder at Wessel
Sherman's St. Charles office. The classification issue -- new
rules or old -- has to do with which employees are, or are not,
eligible for overtime pay.

Overtime isn't the only issue Ms. Murphy thinks could trip
employers. Among the others:

   -- Sick leave. A new Illinois law effective January 1 requires
that employers allow employees to use sick leave time not only for
their own illnesses but also to care for their children, spouse,
siblings, parents, in-laws, grandchildren, grandparents and
stepparents.

In addition, both Cook County and the city of Chicago passed
ordinances, effective July 7, that require employees to be allowed
to accrue paid sick leave beginning on the first day of employment
at the rate of one hour for every 40 hours worked.

There is an annual cap and some carry-over of unused hours.

Don't ignore the sick leave accrual issue if your business is
outside Cook or Chicago.  "These laws may apply to employers
located outside (Cook County or Chicago) with employees working in
those areas for at least two hours in every two-week period,
Murphy wrote.

   -- VESSA. The Victim's Economic Security and Safety Act
requires that employers provide unpaid leave to employees who are
victims of domestic or sexual abuse.  Effective Jan. 1, even
employers with only one employee are subject to VESSA.

Businesses with up to 14 employees must allow employees covered by
VESSA up to four weeks of unpaid leave to handle VESSA issues,
Murphy emailed.  Employers with 15-49 employees must allow eight
weeks of leave; those with 50 or more employees must allow 12
weeks.

   -- Employee privacy. The Illinois legislature clarified
employees' right to privacy pertaining to their personal online
accounts.  Among other points, Ms. Murphy noted, employers cannot
require that an employee "access a personal online account in the
presence of the employer" and cannot require an employee to join
an online account established by the employer or require that an
employee add the employer as a contact to the employee's online
account or to a group affiliated with an employee's online
account.

With some restrictions, the changes do not limit an employer's
right to monitor an employee's use of its email accounts and
electronic devices.


* Food Labeling-Related Class Actions Clogs Federal Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi of Washington Legal Foundation, in an article for
Forbes, reports that in 2016, class-action lawsuits alleging that
a processed food product or its labeling violated state consumer-
protection laws continued to clog the federal courts, especially
in California.  The number of new food-related consumer class
actions filed in 2016 nearly equaled the number filed in 2015,
according to a report in Food Navigator USA.  It's unclear whether
these trends will hold in 2017, but there is one set of blatantly
frivolous claims that should disappear this year: those that seek
judicial regulation of products that contain partially
hydrogenated oil (PHO), the main source of trans fat.  A
December 13, 2016 Southern District of California decision should
frustrate such claims in the short term, and a forthcoming US
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in a pending case
may (and should) end them permanently.

For the last several years, one law firm, The Weston Firm, has
filed scores of class-action lawsuits on behalf of consumers
aimed, as one judge put it, at "eradicat[ing] artificial trans-fat
from foods."  The lawsuits bear the hallmarks of lawyer-driven
litigation, including cookie-cutter complaints and repeat
plaintiffs.  For instance, just two class representatives, Victor
Guttmann and Shavonda Hawkins, have filed 8 trans-fat class
actions.  Their allegations that products with trace amounts of
PHO are mislabeled "No Trans Fat" or "0 Grams Trans Fat" have
failed because Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations
expressly permit such claims.  Courts have also consistently
dismissed a second set of claims -- that food processors' use of
PHO is unlawful under California's Unfair Competition Act (UCA) or
breaches warranties.

Standing squarely in the way of these "use" claims are a
regulatory determination on PHO by FDA and a provision in the
federal Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 clarifying the
impact of that FDA action.

On June 7, 2015, FDA determined that scientific evidence no longer
supported a "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) designation for
PHO and thus after June 18, 2018, food manufacturers would have to
petition FDA for approval of PHO's use.  The wording of FDA's
declaration -- in particular its failure to emphasize that non-
GRAS does not equal "unsafe" -- led WLF to warn in a June 18, 2015
post here on Forbes.com that the agency's action could inspire a
PHO-litigation feeding frenzy. Many in Congress shared our
concern.  Hence, language was added to the 2016 appropriations
bill, passed on December 18, 2015, saying that products sold prior
to June 2018 are neither unsafe nor adulterated under federal law
for containing PHO.

Southern District of California Judge John Houston handed The
Weston Firm its latest PHO "use"-claim defeat in one of Hawkins's
suits, Hawkins v. Kellogg Company. Judge Houston's December 13,
2016 ruling echoed his November 8, 2016 order in another
Hawkins/Weston Firm suit, Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods.  Just as
Judge Houston ruled in that case, he held that Hawkins could not
allege that Kellogg's use of PHO is "unlawful" under UCA Sec
17200. He reasoned that FDA's final determination, bolstered by
the appropriations bill language, means that PHO use is lawful
until June 2018.

As for Hawkins's other state-law claims, Judge Houston held that
the remedy Hawkins seeks conflicts with federal law, and is thus
preempted.  Judge Houston pointedly stated that Hawkins's action
to make PHO use under California law "'immediately unlawful' . . .
is one of the frivolous lawsuits that Congress meant to preclude
until 2018."

Yet another Weston Firm/Hawkins case, Hawkins v. The Kroger Co.,
is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Hawkins claimed
Kroger's mislabeling of breadcrumbs as containing "0g Trans Fat"
and its unlawful use of PHO caused her physical and financial
harm.  Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey Miller held
Hawkins could not establish standing to sue and dismissed the suit
in March, 2016.  Hawkins seeks reversal of the trial court's
standing conclusion and reasserts her mislabeling and unlawful-use
claims.  In its November 16, 2016 answering brief, Kroger asks the
Ninth Circuit to affirm Judge Miller, and in the process to rule
that Hawkins's state-law claims are meritless.

The Ninth Circuit takes an especially plodding approach to hearing
arguments and issuing decisions.  That has held true for class
actions involving food ingredients and labeling, an area where the
lower courts are in desperate need of appellate court guidance.
Even worse, when the Ninth Circuit has gotten around to ruling on
food cases, it has often released short "unpublished," i.e. non-
precedential, decisions.

Hawkins v. The Kroger Co. poses an issue of first impression for
the Ninth Circuit, but certainly not one where the law is unclear
or the outcome uncertain, especially with regard to the unlawful-
use claim.  The lower courts have unanimously held such claims
lack merit.  The Ninth Circuit can and should release a published
decision that affirms Judge Miller's standing determination, and
does so in such a way that clarifies federal preemption of PHO-
related mislabeling and unlawful-use claims.

A definitive, clear Ninth Circuit decision this year in Hawkins
would remind the Food Court Bar that Congress and federal
regulators are far better positioned to set rules for food
products sold in a national marketplace than plaintiffs' lawyers,
judges, or juries.


* President-Elect Trump's Businesses May Become Legal Targets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Day and Bernard Condon, writing for The Associated Press,
report that as a businessman, Donald Trump has kept the courts
busy.  That's hardly likely to change when he enters the Oval
Office, creating an unusual and potentially serious problem for a
sitting president.

Only a handful of presidents have undergone legal depositions
during their terms, and even fewer have become embroiled in
private lawsuits.  Trump is poised to join that small club.

Just last week, the president-elect sat for a deposition in a
lawsuit involving his Washington hotel, and he is still tied up in
legal disputes that are to proceed after Inauguration Day. Trump
is also under investigation by the New York attorney general over
whether he used his charity for personal benefit.

Those are only some of the pending matters.

While Trump has said he will turn over management of his company
to his adult sons, he has left open the possibility he will keep
not only an ownership interest but the legal liability that
accompanies it.  He was expected to give more details about
stepping away at a news conference on Wednesday, Jan. 11.

The details are important because the closer Trump remains to his
business while in office, the more he makes himself and the
company targets for litigation.  Those attacks could include
lawsuits brought by deep-pocketed political opponents who could
use the courts as one more battleground to fight his
administration.

"He is going to be not just a litigation magnet, but a litigation
vortex that sucks in every political and personal adversary he
has," said Norman Eisen, the Obama administration chief White
House ethics counselor from 2009 through 2011.  Mr. Eisen has
encouraged Trump to sell his assets and put the cash in a blind
trust to avoid conflicts of interest and legal pitfalls.

Given the heated political climate, Mr. Eisen said Trump could end
up on the other end of a strategy that one of his advisers,
billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, used in a civil privacy
lawsuit against Gawker Media LLC: bankrolling someone else's
lawsuit to further a personal or political agenda.

Under constitutional immunity protections, Trump can't be sued
over official acts in the Oval Office.  But he could be named in
lawsuits for personal actions or those involving his businesses.
And the presidency may offer no protection from lawsuits that
started before he took office.

"Prior litigation related to his business will not be so easy to
dismiss," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George
Washington University.  "Those types of cases are generally not
covered by immunity rules."

That raises the prospect of President Trump answering questions
under oath in more depositions.  Presidents and other high-ranking
public officials aren't exempt from them, Mr. Turley said, as Bill
Clinton discovered in the Paula Jones case that led to his 1998
impeachment by the House of Representatives.

The danger for Trump is heightened given the sprawling nature of
his business, the Trump Organization.  The president-elect owns or
controls some 500 companies involved in hotels, golf resorts,
office buildings and condominium towers in several countries
including Scotland, Ireland, Dubai and Indonesia.

"We've had presidents before who were rich, but we're in some
uncharted territory given Trump's wealth and his myriad of
business interests," said Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the
University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in
constitutional separation of powers.

Mr. Prakash said Trump's businesses could also be tempting legal
targets because potential plaintiffs may think he would be more
likely to settle cases -- as he did with Trump University fraud
lawsuits in the weeks after the election.

Trump paid $25 million to settle three lawsuits alleging the real
estate school misled students into paying as much as $35,000 a
year for instruction of little value.  Trump said he did nothing
wrong and was only settling so he could focus on the presidency.

The Trump Organization's general counsel, Alan Garten, rejects the
idea that the company is now more willing to pay judgments to
plaintiffs, noting that Trump sat for a deposition last week
instead of settling.  Mr. Garten said the Trump Organization faces
dozens of lawsuits, but most are small -- personal injury lawsuits
brought by visitors to Trump hotels and resorts, for example, or
lawsuits brought by the company against guests who left without
paying.  He said no more than a dozen cases are significant.

Mr. Garten also said he wasn't worried about future legal attacks
funded by political opponents.  "People will be wasting their
time," he said. He added he will "zealously defend" the company.

But that instinct to fight has sometimes led to Trump and his
businesses dragging out cases.

Trump has decided to pursue two lawsuits against chefs --
Jose Andres and Geoffrey Zakarian -- who pulled out of restaurant
deals in his new Washington hotel after the candidate made
disparaging comments during his campaign about Mexican immigrants
in the U.S. illegally.

The hotel may be facing additional legal entanglements.  As The
Washington Post recently reported, contractors have filed liens
against the property in the past month, saying they are still owed
money for their work.

Mr. Garten said that contractors filing liens aren't unexpected
given the hotel was such a big project, and that they aren't a big
deal.

Allegations of unpaid work are at the center of another pending
dispute.

In 2014, a Florida paint store filed a lien against Trump's Doral
golf resort for $32,000 that it said it was owed for supplies
during a renovation.  Trump fought back and now, two years later,
the store's fees for its lawyers have mounted and added to the
bill. In October, a circuit court awarded more than $310,000 to
the store, but the case is still pending on an appeal filed by
Trump and likely to continue months longer, said store lawyer
Daniel Vega of Taylor Espino Vega & Touron.

Another tactic that may haunt Trump is his use of courts or
private arbitration to attack the media, silence his critics and
keep employees from talking.

Throughout his campaign, Trump routinely threatened legal action
against news outlets, including The Associated Press, for coverage
he claimed was unfair.  He sought $10 million in damages against a
former adviser he accused of violating a non-disclosure agreement.
The matter was settled after the adviser, Sam Nunberg, contested
the proceeding in New York state court.

Trump is also coming in with a state investigation into his
charity hanging over his head.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an
investigation of The Donald J. Trump Foundation last year after
news organizations revealed that Trump used the charity to settle
lawsuits, make an illegal $25,000 political contribution to a
group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and purchase
items such as a painting of himself that was displayed at one of
his properties.

In December, Trump said he would dissolve the charity to avoid
conflicts of interest, but Mr. Schneiderman has said the charity
cannot close while the investigation is going on.  In an email to
the AP, spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said she couldn't say when the
investigation will wrap up. Trump does not face the potential for
criminal charges in that investigation, but he or the foundation
could face fines and other civil penalties.

Mr. Prakash said the litigation problem is so big that Congress
should pass a law freezing any legal action against sitting
presidents until after they leave office.  Such a law,
Mr. Prakash argued in a Los Angeles Times op-ed article, should
also bar presidents from bringing personal or business lawsuits
while in office.

Obama ethics lawyer Mr. Eisen thinks the best solution is for
Trump to divest his assets, as most recent presidents have done.
The president-elect has given no indication he is considering such
a move.

"This is going to be a monumental distraction," Mr.  Eisen said.
Litigation facing the next president, he added, is likely to prove
"embarrassing and damaging not just to Donald Trump but to the
country."


* Proskauer Rose's Oncidi Reviews California Employment Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J Oncidi, Esq. -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
in Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. S. Ct.
2016), Jennifer Augustus filed this putative class action on
behalf of all ABM security guards, alleging that ABM consistently
failed to provide uninterrupted rest periods as required by state
law.  During discovery, ABM acknowledged that it required guards
to keep their radios and pagers on, remain vigilant and respond
when needs arose, such as escorting tenants to parking lots,
notifying building managers of mechanical problems and responding
to emergency situations during their breaks.  The trial court
granted plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication on their rest
period claim on the ground that ABM's policy was to provide guards
with rest periods subject to employer control and the obligation
to perform certain work-related duties.  The trial court
subsequently awarded the class approximately $90 million in
statutory damages, interest and penalties.  The Court of Appeal
reversed, but in this opinion, the California Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeal and held, consistent with the trial
court's judgment, that California law prohibits on-duty rest
periods.  "What [the law] require[s] instead is that employers
relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time,
and relieve their employees of all duties -- including the
obligation that an employee remain on call."

Security Guard Class Action Should Not Have Been Decertified
Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp., 5 Cal. App. 5th 926 (2016)

Nivida Lubin, et al., filed this class action lawsuit against
their employer for its alleged failure to provide Lubin and
similarly situated employees (private security guards) with off-
duty meal and rest breaks and for providing inadequate wage
statements.  The trial court initially certified a class of all
non-exempt security officers employed by Wackenhut in California
during the class period.  Following the opinions in Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) and Brinker Restaurant
Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), the trial court
granted Wackenhut's motion to decertify the class.  The Court of
Appeal reversed the decertification order, holding that "the only
explanation articulated for providing an on-duty meal period was a
staffing decision -- a client's preference for continuous
coverage," which did not mean that individual issues predominated.
The Court further held that the alleged invalidity of the on-duty
meal agreements could be evaluated by statistical sampling or
inspection of the agreements themselves and that the rest break
and wage statement claims also were susceptible to class
treatment.

Discrimination Claims Against Media Company Are Not Barred By
Anti-SLAPP Statute

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 2016 WL 7217201 (Cal. Ct. App.
2016)

Stanley Wilson alleged discrimination, retaliation, wrongful
termination and defamation against CNN, et al., where he worked as
a television producer before his employment was terminated
following an audit of his work involving suspected plagiarism.
Defendants answered the complaint and then filed a special motion
to strike all causes of action pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 425.16 (the "anti-SLAPP" statute) on the ground that all of
their staffing decisions (including those involving Mr. Wilson)
were acts in furtherance of CNN's right of free speech that were
"necessarily 'in connection' with a matter of public interest --
news stories relating to current events and matters of interest to
CNN's news consumers."  The trial court granted CNN's anti-SLAPP
motion and dismissed the lawsuit, but the Court of Appeal
reversed, rejecting the characterization of defendants' allegedly
discriminatory and retaliatory conduct as mere "staffing
decisions" in furtherance of their free speech rights to determine
who shapes the way they present news stories.  See also Armin v.
Riverside Community Hosp., 5 Cal. App. 5th 810 (2016) (physician's
religious discrimination claims against hospital employer were not
barred by the anti-SLAPP statute).

Employee Could Proceed With Disability Discrimination And Wrongful
Termination Claims

Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc., 5 Cal. App. 5th 570
(2016)

Sofia Soria worked as an on-air radio personality for Univision
for approximately 14 years before her employment was terminated
for alleged tardiness and lack of preparation for her show.  In
response to Ms. Soria's lawsuit for alleged disability
discrimination, Univision argued it had no knowledge of
Ms. Soria's alleged disability (a benign tumor) and that it had
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate her employment.
The trial court granted Univision's motion for summary judgment,
but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the alleged
discrimination was based on an ailment that limited a major life
activity (work).  The Court further held that despite the
employer's assertion that it was not aware of Ms. Soria's alleged
disability, Ms. Soria's testimony that she had orally notified her
supervisor of her condition created a disputed issue of fact
precluding summary adjudication.  Similarly, the Court found
triable issues of fact regarding Ms. Soria's claims that the
employer violated the California Family Rights Act because Ms.
Soria's statements concerning an alleged need to take time off
from work for surgery were sufficient to trigger Univision's
obligation to inquire further into the details of Ms. Soria's
request.

Employee Injured During "Mock Robbery" Was Not Limited To Workers'
Compensation Remedy

Lee v. West Kern Water Dist., 5 Cal. App. 5th 606 (2016)

Kathy Lee, an employee of the water district, sued the district
and four co-employees for assault and intentional infliction of
emotional distress after the co-employees staged a "mock robbery"
without Lee's knowledge and one of them (while wearing a mask)
confronted her at the cashier's window with a note demanding money
and saying he had a gun.  The jury awarded Lee $360,000. The trial
court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial, but the
Court of Appeal reversed the order, holding that Lee was not
limited to the exclusive remedy provided by workers' compensation
because an exception exists when an employee's injury is caused by
a "willful physical assault" as was the case here. See also Kesner
v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 5th 1132 (2016) (employers and premises
owners have a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent exposure
by employee's household members to asbestos carried by the bodies
and clothing of workers who are exposed to asbestos).

On-Duty Meal Periods Were Permissible For Concrete Mixer Drivers
Driscoll v. Graniterock Co., 2016 WL 6994923 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)

Brian Driscoll, et al., filed a putative class action against
their employer, Graniterock, on behalf of 200 current and former
concrete mixer drivers for its alleged failure to provide
employees with off-duty meal periods and an additional hour of pay
for meal periods during which the drivers opted to continue
working.  The class was certified, and the case was tried without
a jury.  The trial judge ruled in favor of Graniterock.  The Court
of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that there was "no
evidence at trial that any mixer driver was ever denied an off-
duty meal period . . . [and] the evidence showed that any concrete
mixer driver who did not sign an On-Duty Meal Period Agreement, or
revoked such agreement, was provided one hour of pay as required
by law."  The Court noted that Graniterock's policies regarding
meal periods are particularly appropriate in the context of the
ready mix concrete industry because mixer drivers manage a rolling
drum of freshly batched concrete at various times throughout their
work day.

California Statute Targeting Three Specific Employers Opposed By A
Union May Violate Equal Protection
Fowler Packing Co. v. Lanier, 2016 WL 7321371 (9th Cir. 2016)

In 2015, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1513 in
response to two state appellate court decisions that exposed
employers to significant and unexpected minimum wage liability for
piece-rate workers.  The statute created a "safe harbor" that gave
employers an affirmative defense against the new claims so long as
the employer made back payments under certain conditions. However,
at the behest of the United Farm Workers of America union (the
"UFW"), the legislature included specific "carve-outs" from the
"safe harbor" for three or four specific employers who were
involved in then-pending litigation against the UFW.  Those
employers (plaintiffs in this case) challenged the statute on the
grounds that it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause and the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  The
district court dismissed the employers' complaint, but the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding
that plaintiffs' claim under the Equal Protection Clause should
not have been dismissed because "the only conceivable explanation
for AB 1513's carve-outs is that they were necessary to procure
the UFW's support in passing that legislation . . .[and] that
justification would not survive even rational basis scrutiny."

California Employment Law Notes: January 2017
Employee's FEHA Retaliation Claim Was Properly Dismissed
Dinslage v. City & County of San Francisco, 5 Cal. App. 5th 368
(2016)

David P. Dinslage is a former employee of the Recreation and Parks
Department of the City and County of San Francisco. As a result of
a large-scale restructuring of the Department, Dinslage's
employment classification was eliminated and he was laid off.  Mr.
Dinslage alleged age discrimination and retaliation, among other
things, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA").  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Department, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.  Mr. Dinslage's
retaliation claim was based on his belief that he suffered
retaliation because of his opposition to Department actions that
allegedly discriminated against disabled members of the general
public.  Therefore, the Court held that Mr. Dinslage had not
engaged in any "protected activity" because his opposition was not
directed at an unlawful employment practice.

Employee's Wrongful Termination Claim Was Properly Dismissed, But
Other Claims Survive

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 5 Cal. App. 5th 154 (2016)

In her fifth amended complaint, Sharmalene Goonewardene alleged
claims against her former employer (ADP) for wrongful termination,
violation of the Labor Code, breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation and negligence.  The trial court sustained ADP's
demurrer to the complaint without further leave to amend, and the
Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding
that only the wrongful termination and Labor Code claims were
properly dismissed.  The Court held that there were not sufficient
facts alleged establishing an employment relationship between Ms.
Goonewardene and ADP (the payroll company used by her employer,
Altour International Inc.) and on that basis affirmed dismissal of
the Labor Code and FLSA violation claims.  Similarly, ADP was not
liable as a matter of law for either discrimination or wrongful
termination in violation of public policy because of the absence
of an employment relationship.  As for the breach of contract
claim, the Court of Appeal held that Ms. Goonewardene and other
Altour employees were third-party beneficiaries of an agreement
between Altour and ADP. The Court also held that the negligent
misrepresentation and professional negligence claims survived
demurrer based on ADP's alleged failure to properly calculate
wages owed to Ms. Goonewardene.

Employee's Breach Of Contract Claim For Unpaid Stock Options Must
Be Retried

Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc., 2016 WL 7217274 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2016)

Patrick Ryan sued his former employer for breach of its alleged
promise to grant him lucrative stock options as a condition of his
employment.  When Mr. Ryan tried to exercise the option to
purchase 25,000 shares 11 months after his resignation, the
company's general counsel responded that the attempted exercise
was ineffective because he was required to exercise the options
within 90 days of his separation from employment and because the
options had not "performance-vested" at the time Mr. Ryan had left
his employment with the company.  Mr. Ryan sued for breach of
contract and also asserted claims for fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.  Although the jury found in favor of Ryan on
his breach of contract claims, it applied an incorrect measure of
damages by, among other things, failing to value the options.  The
Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by denying Mr.
Ryan's motion for a new trial and ordered that Mr. Ryan be given
an opportunity to choose between a new trial on all issues (not
just damages) and reinstatement of the original judgment under
review.

"Going and Coming" Rule Barred Employer Liability For Accident
Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., 4 Cal. App. 5th
608 (2016)

California Employment Law Notes: January 2017

Luis Mooney (an employee of Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling ("H&P")) was involved in a traffic accident while
returning home from work; Mr. Mooney was driving two other
employees to a hotel where they were staying during the job.
Brent Dale Pierson (the other driver) alleged that Mr. Mooney was
acting in the course and scope of his employment with H&P at the
time of the accident and sought to hold H&P liable for his
injuries.  The parties filed cross motions to establish whether
Mr. Mooney was acting within the course and scope of his
employment at the time of the accident.  The trial court granted
H&P's motion for summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law
that the going and coming rule applied and, therefore, Mooney's
operation of his vehicle at the time of the accident was not
within the scope of his employment.  The Court of Appeal affirmed,
holding that the going and coming rule applied and that none of
the exceptions (vehicle use, required vehicle, incidental benefit,
special errand, etc.) applied. See also Khosh v. Staples Constr.
Co., 4 Cal. App. 5th 712 (2016) (employee of an independent
contractor could not recover tort damages for work-related
injuries from the contractor's hirer).

The Monetary Value Of Vacation Accrual Need Not Be Included In
Wage Statement

Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P., 4 Cal. App. 5th 385 (2016)

Lidia Soto sued her former employer, Motel 6 Operating, L.P., for
violation of Labor Code Sec. 226(a) for failing to include the
monetary value of accrued vacation pay in its employees' wage
statements.  Soto sued in her individual capacity and also on
behalf of all aggrieved workers under the Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  The trial court sustained the employer's
demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed,
holding that Section 226(a) does not require employers to include
the monetary value of accrued vacation time in employee wage
statements until and unless a payment is due at the time of the
termination of the employment relationship -- before that point,
accrued but unused vacation time is not a quantifiable amount of
wages.

Lawyers In Putative Class Action Were Properly Disqualified Based
Upon Representation Of Another Class

Walker v. Apple, Inc., 4 Cal. App. 5th 1098 (2016)

The trial court disqualified the attorneys for a putative class
led by Stacey and Tyler Walker based upon the lawyers' concurrent
representation of a certified class in another wage and hour class
action (the Felczer class) pending against the same employer
(Apple).  In its disqualification motion, Apple asserted that in
order to advance the interests of its clients in the Walker case,
the lawyers would have to cross-examine one of their own clients
from the Felczer class in an adverse manner.  The Court of Appeal
affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding the
firm represents the former store manager in the Felczer class
action and that a disqualifying conflict exists between her
interests and the Walkers' interests.

$179,000 Penalty Upheld For Employer's Failure To Maintain
Workers' Compensation

Taylor v. Dep't of Industrial Relations, 4 Cal. App. 5th 801
(2016)

Following an inspection, the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement ("DLSE") discovered that Aaron's Automotive ("Taylor")
had been in operation since 2007 but had never acquired workers'
compensation insurance coverage as required by Labor Code Sec.
3700.  The DLSE issued a Penalty Assessment Order, assessing a
penalty against Taylor in the amount of $179,329.60.  The Court of
Appeal rejected Taylor's construction of Labor Code Sec. 3722(b),
involving the meaning of being uninsured during the calendar year
preceding the determination and concluded that "even if Taylor's
statutory interpretation is correct, the penalty assessed by the
DLSE in this case would not be invalidated. Nor would the amount
of the penalty imposed be any less."

Union Member's Hostile Work Environment Claim Was Not Preempted By
Federal Law

Matson v. UPS, 840 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2016)

California Employment Law Notes: January 2017
Mary Matson, a member of the Teamsters Union, worked as a
"combination worker" unloading and sorting packages at UPS's
Boeing Field International hub in Seattle.  During her employment,
Ms. Matson allegedly complained that because of her gender she was
subject to unfair and demeaning treatment in the workplace.  UPS
subsequently fired Ms. Matson for "proven dishonesty," relying
upon results of an investigation into whether Ms. Matson had
falsified delivery records.  Ms. Matson filed a grievance, and a
joint Teamsters/UPS labor panel affirmed her discharge.  Ms.
Matson then filed suit against UPS alleging that her termination
was unlawfully motivated by race and gender discrimination and in
retaliation for her prior complaints; that she was subjected to a
gender-based hostile work environment -- a claim largely, but not
exclusively, based on the way UPS assigned work; and that UPS had
committed various common law torts. UPS removed the state court
action to federal court and moved for summary judgment, which was
granted on the merits, except with respect to Ms. Matson's gender
discrimination, retaliation and gender-based hostile work-
environment claim, which UPS asserted was preempted by Section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") on the grounds that
the question of whether UPS assigned work based on factors other
than gender required interpretation of the collective bargaining
agreement (the "CBA").  The district court rejected UPS's LMRA
preemption argument, and the case proceeded to trial.

The jury sided with UPS on Ms.  Matson's claims that her
termination was motivated by gender and retaliation, but it
awarded Ms. Matson $500,000 on the hostile work-environment claim.
After UPS's post-trial motion, the district court ordered a new
trial based on LMRA preemption of that part of the hostile
environment claim related to the assignment of work -- i.e.,
accepting the argument that it had previously rejected.  UPS won
the second trial in which the jury considered whether there was
proof of a hostile work environment based on conduct other than
the assignment of work, and Ms. Matson appealed.  In this opinion,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the judgment, holding that because Ms. Matson's hostile work-
environment claim could be resolved without interpretation of the
CBA, the LMRA did not preempt the claim.  The Court of Appeals
remanded for reconsideration of the amount of damages owed to Ms.
Matson.  See also Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840
F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2016) (amount in controversy requirement was
satisfied where the potential cost of complying with injunctive
relief was considered along with plaintiff's claim for damages).


* Rule Changes Under Trump Expected to Hit Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley W. Foster, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that even
prior to the presidential election, this had been an interesting
and tumultuous year for securities litigators.  The death of
Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 left the U.S. Supreme
Court with a 4-4 split and an uncertain future.  In Delaware,
there was a radical shift in merger litigation as the Chancery
Court closed the door on nonmonetary disclosure-only settlements.
The Securities and Exchange Commission brought a record number of
enforcement proceedings and paid millions of dollars in
whistleblower bounties, and the Department of Justice continued to
target the individuals involved in corporate wrongdoing.

The election of Donald J. Trump, however, overwhelms all other
trends and developments.  Trump's election was unanticipated by
most experts, and it has created significant uncertainty.  Almost
daily, there are conflicting news reports concerning President-
Elect Trump's presumed intentions and legislative priorities.
Few things are certain, but we can reasonably expect a number of
changes that will impact Wall Street, securities litigation, and
regulatory enforcement:

The Dodd-Frank Act. President-Elect Trump has vowed to dismantle
the Dodd-Frank Act, which I described in 2010 as "the most
sweeping financial legislation since the Great Depression." Dodd-
Frank was enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis, and
its regulatory requirements have proven onerous and controversial,
particularly for the banking industry.
Steven Mnuchin, the proposed nominee for Treasury secretary, has
stated that his "number one priority" is to "strip back" Dodd-
Frank.

The Trump administration's efforts to alter or repeal the Act are
likely to find support from Congressional Republicans.  Texas
Congressman Jeb Hensarling, who has been linked to the new
administration, sought to repeal the Act earlier this year,
stating that it "has failed."  Most Democrats would disagree with
Congressman Hensarling's assessment, and they are likely to fight
to preserve key aspects of the law.

At this point, it is difficult to assess how much political
capital the President-Elect is willing to expend in a battle over
Dodd-Frank.  At a minimum, we should expect rollbacks of
restrictions on bank investment and lending activity, a slowdown
in agency rule-making, and attempts to rein in or even eliminate
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Supreme Court. Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has
devoted considerable attention to securities cases.  he Roberts
Court has altered the landscape of federal securities
jurisprudence in numerous respects: narrowing the jurisdictional
reach of the securities laws, limiting claims against secondary
actors, redefining pleading and class certification standards, and
addressing questions of materiality, causation, and the statute of
limitations.

Justice Scalia authored many of the Court's important business law
decisions, including securities cases such as Morrison v. National
Australia Bank, which limited the extraterritorial reach of the
Securities Exchange Act.  More importantly, Scalia wrote the
majority opinion in a number of sharply-divided business cases
decided by a narrow 5-4 or 5-3 vote, including Wal-Mart Stores v.
Dukes, which curtailed employment class actions, and AT&T Mobility
LLC. v. Concepcion and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, both of which strictly enforced business arbitration
agreements.

In the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death, there is considerable
uncertainty about the future direction of the Court, including its
approach to business litigation.  Most experts had anticipated a
Democratic victory in the presidential election, and the
assumption had been that the Court would move to the left. Trump's
victory changes the calculus.  Justice Scalia's replacement is
likely to share many of his conservative viewpoints, and the
Republicans will regain their 5-4 majority. The dramatic shift
will come after the next vacancy.  Who knows when that might occur
-- Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and there is a
vacancy only when a justice retires or dies. But Ruth Bader
Ginsburg is 83, Anthony Kennedy is 80, and Stephen Breyer is 78.
Sooner or later, there will be a second vacancy, and the real
fight will begin.

The Securities and Exchange Commission. On Nov. 14, 2016, Mary Jo
White announced that she was stepping down as Chair of the SEC.
White's tenure will be remembered for her aggressive "broken
windows" enforcement style, her efforts to require companies to
admit wrongdoing in connection with SEC settlements, and the rise
of the SEC whistleblower program.  Chair White also presided over
extensive Dodd-Frank rule-making, which may or may not survive her
tenure.  White's departure is likely to bring significant changes
to the SEC.  Paul Atkins, a former Republican SEC commissioner and
fierce Dodd-Frank critic, is reportedly leading Trump's transition
team assessing the SEC and other financial regulators.  If Mr.
Atkins is appointed to replace White, we can expect a rollback of
Dodd-Frank rule-making, even if the act itself survives.  Mr.
Atkins is an outspoken critic of corporate financial penalties,
which he believes further punish the shareholders who have been
victimized by corporate fraud.
Mr. Atkins has expressed a preference for holding individual
corporate actors accountable for their actions.  In that regard,
Mr. Atkins' prosecutorial preferences are consistent with those of
the Obama Justice Department, which likewise has targeted
individual wrongdoers engaged in corporate misconduct.

In 2005, Mr. Atkins argued that if "someone in the company cooked
the books," it is the individuals engaged in misconduct who should
be held accountable.  Ten year later, the Obama Justice Department
announced new prosecution guidelines targeting individuals
involved in corporate wrongdoing.  Echoing
Mr. Atkins' earlier argument, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
stated that "as a matter of basic fairness, we cannot allow the
flesh-and-blood people responsible for misconduct to walk away,
while leaving only the company's employees and shareholders to pay
the price."

Perhaps there is common ground after all.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DAP, Warren Pumps Lose Bid to Dismiss "Vesper"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned GEORGE VESPER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01322 (JBS/AMD)(D.N.J.),
was filed by Plaintiff in New Jersey Superior Court against 31
named defendants, alleging that he was exposed to defendants'
asbestos products at various worksites where the Plaintiff worked
as machinist, pipe fitter, and electrician during the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s.  The case was subsequently removed to the
District Court.

Defendant Buffalo Pumps, Inc., argues that the Plaintiff has
failed to offer any evidence that would tend to show that
Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos as a result of any work with or
around Buffalo equipment; Buffalo avers that there is no genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Buffalo is responsible for
Plaintiff's asbestos exposure and therefore for his subsequent
injuries and that it is therefore entitled to summary judgment.
The Plaintiff has not filed a response to Buffalo's motion.  Judge
Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
offer evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether exposure to any Buffalo equipment caused his
alleged asbestosis, and Buffalo's motion for summary judgment will
be granted.

Defendant DAP, Inc., argues that the Plaintiff has not produced
sufficient evidence to establish that he was exposed to asbestos
as a result of working with a product manufactured by DAP.  Judge
Simandle finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as
to this Defendant, and DAP's motion for summary judgment will be
denied.

Defendant Sid Harvey Industries, Inc., argues that the Plaintiff
has failed to proffer evidence sufficient to establish a genuine
issue of material fact that he was exposed to asbestos due to any
product or equipment manufactured, distributed, or sold by Sid
Harvey.  The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to offer
evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether any product made, supplied or distributed by this
Defendant exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; Sid Harvey's motion for
summary judgment will be granted.

Defendant Warren Pumps argues that the Plaintiff has failed to
present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable finder of fact
to conclude that the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos
attributable to Warren, or that such exposure was a proximate
cause of his alleged injury. The Court finds that there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to this Defendant, and Warren's
motion for summary judgment will be denied.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 19, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/PpY0pZ from Leagle.com.

GEORGE VESPER, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL S. NOONAN.

GEORGE VESPER, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM L. KUZMIN, COHEN,
PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C..

BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

COPES-VULCAN, INC., Defendant, represented by J. CHRISTOPHER
HENSCHEL, CARROL MCNULTY & KULL.

DAP, INC., Defendant, represented by MARC J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY &
KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC.

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, Defendant, represented by ALEXANDRA
ELIZABETH OBER, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP, SEBASTIAN A. GOLDSTEIN,
MARKS, O'NEIL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY & ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH OBER,
LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP.

GOULD PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK SATZ,
HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

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

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

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANTHONY JAMES
CARUSO, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO
SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO, III, Caruso Pope Edell
Picini, P.C..

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

3M COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CATHERINE E. BRUNERMER,
LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP.

COPES-VULCAN, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by J. CHRISTOPHER
HENSCHEL, CARROL MCNULTY & KULL.

CRANE PUMPS & SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by LISA
PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & MICHAEL E. WALLER, K&L GATES
LLP.

DAP, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY
& KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC.

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by ALEXANDRA
ELIZABETH OBER, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP & SEBASTIAN A. GOLDSTEIN,
MARKS, O'NEIL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY.

GOULD PUMPS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK
SATZ, HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

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

IMO INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN BUCCA,
JR..

SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC
J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY &
KLUGER PC.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
JAMES CARUSO, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI.

WEIL-MCLAIN COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOEL R. CLARK,
MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC.

IMO INDUSTRIES INC., Claimant, represented by BENJAMIN BUCCA, JR..

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

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendant, represented by
DINESH UTTAM DADLANI, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD. &
KEVIN WILLIAM TURBERT, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD.

BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, INC., Cross Defendant, represented
by CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, INC..

COPES-VULCAN, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by J. CHRISTOPHER
HENSCHEL, CARROL MCNULTY & KULL.

CRANE PUMPS & SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by LISA
PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & MICHAEL E. WALLER, K&L GATES
LLP.

DAP, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY
& KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC.

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by ALEXANDRA
ELIZABETH OBER, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP & SEBASTIAN A. GOLDSTEIN,
MARKS, O'NEIL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY.

GOULD PUMPS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK
SATZ, HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

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

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA,
PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC.

SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC
J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY &
KLUGER PC.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
JAMES CARUSO, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI,
CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO, III, Caruso Pope
Edell Picini, P.C..

GOULD PUMPS, INC., Cross Claimant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK
SATZ, HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., Defendant, represented by GEORGE RUDOLPH
TALARICO, LOCKE LORD LLP & AILEEN E. MCTIERNAN, Locke Lord LLP.

AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendant, represented by
DINESH UTTAM DADLANI, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD. &
KEVIN WILLIAM TURBERT, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD.

BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO,
III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C..

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, INC., Cross Defendant, Pro Se.

COPES-VULCAN, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by J. CHRISTOPHER
HENSCHEL, CARROL MCNULTY & KULL.

CRANE PUMPS & SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, represented by LISA
PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & MICHAEL E. WALLER, K&L GATES
LLP.

DAP, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY
& KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER PC.

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by ALEXANDRA
ELIZABETH OBER, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP & SEBASTIAN A. GOLDSTEIN,
MARKS, O'NEIL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY.

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

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

MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES, Defendant, represented by RUSSELL A.
PEPE, HARWOOD LLOYD.

SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by MARC
J. WISEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C. & MATTHEW P. KESSLER, MCGIVNEY &
KLUGER PC.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ANTHONY
JAMES CARUSO, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI,
CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC & NICHOLAS ALBANO, III, Caruso Pope
Edell Picini, P.C..

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Abrogast" Denied
------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland issued a memorandum and order dated
January 4, 2017, a full-text copy of which available at
https://is.gd/pPMx97 from Leagle.com, denying the motion to remand
to state court the case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et
al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil
No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.),

According to Judge Bredar, the Plaintiffs' remand motion was filed
prior to the filing of third-party complaints by MCIC, Inc., and
Georgia-Pacific, LLC.  As now amended, those complaints invoke
claims of contribution under the Federal Employers Liability Act,
45 U.S.C. Section 51 et seq., and the Locomotive Inspection Act,
49 U.S.C. Section 20701 et seq.  Thus, despite the resolution of
the claims upon which the case was removed -- i.e., claims against
certain defendants who could rely upon the "federal officer
defense" for federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a) --
the case still contains federal claims, and MCIC and Georgia-
Pacific have chosen to assert those claims in this federal forum.
Consequently, the Court's jurisdiction is not strictly
"supplemental" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) as it would be over
purely state claims remaining in the case.  If it were so, then
the Court could exercise its discretion to remand the case under
Section 1367(c)(3). Since that is not the case, however, remand
will be denied, Judge Bredar held.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by John Eugene Herrick,
Motley Rice LLC & John E. Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast as Personal Representative for the Estate of
Charles L. Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P.
Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond P.
Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D.
Cook, Wilcox and Savage, pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP, pro hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

Greene, Tweed & Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas
Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.

MCIC, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable
LLP & M. Elizabeth O. Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young
LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage,
pro hac vice & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro
hac vice.

CSX Transportation, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Amy
Estelle Askew, Kramon and Graham PA & Christopher C. Jeffries,
Kramon & Graham, P.A..

MCIC, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Louis E. Grenzer,
Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

CSX Transportation, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Amy
Estelle Askew, Kramon and Graham PA & Christopher C. Jeffries,
Kramon & Graham, P.A..

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage &
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.

CSX Transportation, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Amy
Estelle Askew, Kramon and Graham PA & Christopher C. Jeffries,
Kramon & Graham, P.A..

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by F. Ford
Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles
and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P. Harris,
Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I.
schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and Savage &
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP.

CSX Transportation, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Amy
Estelle Askew, Kramon and Graham PA & Christopher C. Jeffries,
Kramon & Graham, P.A..



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Allowed To Correct Deficiencies in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland found, in ESTHER RHODES et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MCIC, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-16-2459 (D. Md.),
that the complaint filed by the Plaintiff is insufficient to state
a claim for relief under Rule 8(a), as construed by the Supreme
Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

In addition, the Plaintiffs have alleged no facts to satisfy the
"frequency, regularity, proximity" test required under Maryland
law to establish causation in asbestos claims, the judge finds.

According to Judge Bredar, if the Plaintiffs are advancing causes
of action based upon conspiracy and fraud, then their complaint
also fails to state claims for relief under those theories.  As to
fraud, the Plaintiffs are required to plead that cause of action
with particularity -- who, what, where, when, how, etc. --
pursuant to Rule 9(b).

Accordingly, Judge Bredar ordered that the motions for judgment on
the pleadings filed by Defendants Honeywell International,
Incorporated, and Ingersoll Rand Company are granted.  Judge
Bredar, however, granted the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file an
amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies.  Any amended
complaint must be filed on or before January 31, 2017.

A full-text copy of the memorandum and order dated January 3,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/pf3iHu from Leagle.com.

EstheRhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy Edmonds,
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl.

Esther Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Peter T. Nicholl, Law
Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of
Peter T. Nicholl.

Bette Rhodes Beachy, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy
Edmonds, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl, Law
Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of
Peter T. Nicholl.

Cathy Joyce Varela, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy
Edmonds, Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl, Law
Office of Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of
Peter T. Nicholl.

James Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy Edmonds,
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl, Law Office of
Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of Peter T.
Nicholl.

Dale Rhodes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Timothy Edmonds,
Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, Peter T. Nicholl, Law Office of
Peter T. Nicholl & Teresa Epps Cummings, Law Offices of Peter T.
Nicholl.

MCIC, Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E.
Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC &
Thomas M. Hanna, McMahon Berger Hanna Linihan Cody McCarthy PC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Third Party Defendant,
represented by John Stewart Cobb, North and Cobb PA.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, represented by Philip A.
Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert
Weathersby Houff.

General Refractories, Co., Defendant, represented by John Stewart
Cobb, North and Cobb PA.

E.L. Stebbings & Company, Defendant, represented by Louis E.
Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC &
Thomas M. Hanna, McMahon Berger Hanna Linihan Cody McCarthy PC.

Hampshire Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by David W.
Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, Malcolm Sean Brisker,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC & Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and
Elliston LLP & Steven J. Parrott, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thurman W.
Zollicoffer, Jr., Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thurman W.
Zollicoffer, Jr., Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

A.W. Chesterton Co., Defendant, represented by Thomas Peter
Bernier, Goldberg Segalla & Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla
LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua
Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael Alan Brown, Miles
and Stockbridge PC & Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Warren Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Thomas Wagman, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Alicia N. Ritchie, Miles
and Stockbridge PC & Jonathan James Huber, Miles & Stockbridge
P.C..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Dawn Danielle Gile,
MacDonald Law Group LLC.

Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Warren N. Weaver,
Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Michelle Noorani, Whiteford
Taylor and Preston LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David J.
Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC & Donald S. Meringer, Meringer
Zois and Quigg LLC.

Pneumo Abex LLC., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP & R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and
Elliston LLP.

The A. O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Doran, DeCaro Doran Siciliano Gallagher and DeBlasis LLP.

GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by
F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented
by Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & Theodore F. Roberts,
Venable LLP.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Helyna M.
Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP & Jason
Richard Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker.

Crown, Cork and Seal, Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
Mason Richmond, Venable LLP & Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas Peter
Bernier, Goldberg Segalla & Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla
LLP.

Dana Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven J. Parrott,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Dawn Danielle Gile, MacDonald Law Group
LLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Dismissed as Defendant in "Sumner"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada approved the stipulation dismissing,
without prejudice, the action styled GERALD SUMNER and SARAH
SUMNER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as
successor-by-merger to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to
CBS CORP., a Pennsylvania Corp., f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORP., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corp, CRANE CO., a
Connecticut Corp., CRANE CO., Individually and for its subsidiary,
DIXIE-NARCO, INC., a Connecticut Corp., DAP, INC., a Maryland
Corp., ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., a Georgia Corp.,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS & LEAD KLEAN-UP, a Nevada Corp., GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, a Connecticut Corp., GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, a Georgia Corp., GENUINE PARTS COMPANY OF NEVADA, a
Nevada Corp.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a New Jersey Corp.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corp., PNEUMO
ABEX, LLC, a New Jersey Corp., SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., a Illinois
Corp., TRANE US, INC., f/k/a AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., a North
Carolina Corp., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a Texas Corp.,
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Individually and as successor-in-interest
to ADMIRAL, a Michigan Corp., WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Individually
and as successor-in-interest to JENN-AIR, a Michigan Corp.,
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Individually and as successor-in-interest
to KITCHENAID, a Michigan Corp., WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
Individually and as successor-in-interest to MAYTAG CORPORATION, a
Michigan Corp., DOES 1 through XX, ROE CORPORATIONS XXI through
XL, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00415-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.), against
Honeywell International, Inc., without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 5, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/saYjuE from Leagle.com.

Gerald Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff W. Marcek, Cliff W.
Marcek, P.C..

Gerald Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan C. Roberts,
Sharder & Associates, pro hac vice.

Sarah Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff W. Marcek, Cliff W.
Marcek, P.C. & Jordan C. Roberts, Sharder & Associates, pro hac
vice.

Genuine Parts Company of Nevada, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Q. Callister, Callister & Associates & Mitchell S. Bisson,
Callister & Associates.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline N. Walton, Reisman Sorokac & Joshua H. Reisman, Reisman
Sorokac.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert R. McCoy,
Kaempfer Crowell.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Curtis Busby,
Bowman and Brooke & Greg W. Marsh, Law Offices of Greg W. Marsh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Ordered to Take Action vs. 2 Companies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In JACK JUNIOR WAUGH, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.),
Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, gave the
Plaintiff until January 13, 2017, to file an appropriate motion or
otherwise take further action with respect to the Defendants LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and RT Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc.,
sued individually and as successor in interest to R.T. Vanderbilt
Company, Inc.

The Plaintiff is advised that failure to take further action
within the time required will result in the dismissal of these
Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Order dated December 30, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/qBPEoj from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

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

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

Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Defendant, represented by David L.
Levy, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

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

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

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

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

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

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Barton Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice
& Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by W.
David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant, represented by Hatcher B.
Kincheloe, Jr., Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe & Gerald
Anderson Stein, II.

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 65 PI Injury Suits at Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc. faces 65 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2016.

The Company states: "The building materials industry has been
subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from
alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products
as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as
building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an
inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event
that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or
may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in
economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated
environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product
liability claims have included and may in the future include
allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a
failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence,
strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain
of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed
prior to 1979. Since 2002 and as of October 31, 2016,
approximately 970 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have
been brought and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 873
have been dismissed without any payment by us, 27 are on deferred
or inactive court dockets, 65 are pending and only 5 have been
settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our
financial condition or operating results."

GMS, Inc. distributes wallboards, suspended ceilings systems, and
complementary interior construction products in North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Faces 3,652 Asbestos, Silica Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. faces 3,652 asbestos and silica related cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 28, 2016.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including 3,652 asbestos and silica related cases),
employment and commercial matters. We and our subsidiaries also
become involved from time to time in proceedings relating to
environmental matters and litigation arising outside the ordinary
course of business."

Joy Global Inc. -- http://www.joyglobal.com/-- is a manufacturer
or underground mining equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Still Faces Asbestos Cases at Oct31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company and its subsidiaries (collectively, John Deere)
continues to face asbestos-related liability, according to Deere &
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2016.

John Deere is subject to various unresolved legal actions which
arise in the normal course of its business, the most prevalent of
which relate to product liability (including asbestos-related
liability), retail credit, employment, patent, and trademark
matters. John Deere believes the reasonably possible range of
losses for these unresolved legal actions in addition to the
amounts accrued would not have a material effect on its financial
statements.

Deere & Company -- https://www.deere.com/ -- manufactures and
distributes a complete line of equipment used in agriculture,
construction, forestry, and turf care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Asbestos Claims at Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is subject to claims related to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are subject to claims related to illnesses
alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component
parts found in older vehicles, although some claims relate to the
alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. Numerous factors
including tort reform, jury awards, and the number of other
solvent companies identified as co-defendants will impact the
number of claims filed against us.

"We estimate the expected ultimate losses for claims and,
consequently, the related reserve in our Consolidated Balance
Sheets. The estimates related to asbestos claims are subject to
uncertainty. Such uncertainty includes some reliance on industry
data to project the future frequency of claims received by us, the
long latency period associated with asbestos exposures and the
types of diseases that will ultimately manifest, and unexpected
future inflationary trends. Historically, actual damages paid out
to individual claimants have not been material. Although we
believe that our estimates and judgments related to asbestos
related claims are reasonable, actual results could differ and we
may be exposed to increases or decreases in our accrual that could
be material.

              Asset Retirement Obligations

"We have a number of asset retirement obligations in connection
with certain owned and leased locations, leasehold improvements,
and sale and leaseback arrangements. Certain of our production
facilities contain asbestos that would have to be removed if such
facilities were to be demolished or undergo a major renovation.
The fair value of the conditional asset retirement obligations as
of the balance sheet date has been determined to be immaterial.
Asset retirement obligations relating to the cost of removing
improvements to leased facilities or returning leased equipment at
the end of the associated agreements are not material."

Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.navistar.com/--
is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce
Internationalbrand commercial and military trucks, and IC Bus(TM)
brand school and commercial buses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Co. Still Faces Asbestos Claims at  Oct. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to face litigation, administrative, and
judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are a party to litigation in the ordinary
course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for
punitive, as well as compensatory, damages arising out of the use
of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we
maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We
are also subject to litigation, administrative, and judicial
proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the
discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of
these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury,
remedial investigations or clean-up, and other costs and damages.
We are also typically involved in commercial disputes, employment
disputes, and patent litigation cases in the ordinary course of
business. To prevent possible infringement of our patents by
others, we periodically review competitors' products. To avoid
potential liability with respect to others' patents, we regularly
review certain patents issued by the USPTO and foreign patent
offices. We believe these activities help us minimize our risk of
being a defendant in patent infringement litigation. We are
currently involved in patent litigation cases, including cases by
or against competitors, where we are asserting and defending
against claims of patent infringement. Such cases are at varying
stages in the litigation process."

The Toro Company -- http://www.thetorocompany.com/-- is a
manufacturer of lawn care products including mowers and irrigation
systems.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Vistra Energy Has 30,900 Claims at Dec. 22
----------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp., formerly TCEH Corp., faces approximately
30,900 asbestos claims since it petitioned for bankruptcy
protection, according to the Company's Form S-1 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated December 22, 2016.

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

"Since the Petition Date and prior to the applicable bar dates
(which have expired), the Debtors have received approximately
41,300 filed pre-petition claims, including approximately 30,900
in filed asbestos claims. The Debtors have substantially completed
the process of reconciling all non-asbestos claims that were filed
and have recorded such claims at the expected allowed amount. With
respect to the claims related to the TCEH Debtors, as of November
14, 2016, most of those claims have been settled, withdrawn or
expunged. The TCEH Debtors have approximately $40 million in
escrow to allocate among and resolve the remaining claims, which
consist primarily of trade payables and legal claims, including
asbestos claims. The TCEH Debtors have up to 180 days from the
Effective Date to resolve these claims.
In September 2016, the TCEH Debtors filed with the Bankruptcy
Court reports developed by independent experts that provide
analysis and estimation of potential liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims. In connection with developing those
reports, we recorded an adjustment to our estimated liability
associated with those claims during the three months ended
September 30, 2016. That estimated liability is subject to
revisions, which may be material, as further information arises.
Certain claims filed or reflected in the Debtors schedules of
assets and liabilities were resolved on the Effective Dates of the
Plan of Reorganization, including certain claims filed by holders
of funded debt and contract counterparties. Claims that remain
unresolved or unreconciled through the filing of this report have
been estimated based upon management's best estimate of the likely
claim amounts that the Bankruptcy Court will ultimately allow.

"On the Effective Date, the TCEH Debtors (together with the
Contributed EFH Corp. Debtors) emerged from the Chapter 11 Cases
and discharged approximately $33.7 billion in liabilities subject
to compromise (LSTC). Distributions for the settled claims related
to the funded debt of the TCEH Debtors commenced subsequent to the
Effective Date."

Vistra Energy Corp. -- https://www.vistraenergy.com/ -- is a
Texas-based energy company focused on the competitive energy and
power generation markets.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Children's Hospital in Crumlin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darragh McDonagh, writing for Dublin Live, reported that the
cancer-causing building material asbestos has been discovered in
three locations at Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin since
2012, according to records released under the Freedom of
Information Act.

The hazardous finds forced the children's hospital to spend almost
EUR30,000 on the treatment or removal of the material by
environmental waste management companies during a three-year
period.

Asbestos was used in the past for insulation or as a component in
other building materials. Inhalation of the substance can cause a
number of diseases, including cancer of the chest and lungs.

Tesco employee Aoife Parle launches single in aid of Temple Street
Children's Hospital

Quantities of the material were discovered at two locations in the
main hospital in December 2012 and May 2015, as well as in a
laboratory on the hospital campus in November 2015.

The issue of asbestos at the hospital, which is up to 60 years old
in parts, was publicly raised by Dublin City Councillor and former
board member, Ruair¡ McGinley in 2014.

Speaking about the future of the Crumlin campus in the context of
the hospital's planned amalgamation into the National Children's
Hospital, Mr McGinley said that any changes to the site would
involve "rectification costs" including those arising from issues
with asbestos.

Records released under the Freedom of Information Act show that a
total of EUR28,324 was paid to environmental waste companies for
the treatment or removal of asbestos by the hospital since
December 2012.

Brave tot who went through open heart surgery gets to spend first
Christmas at home

The majority of that money related to the discovery of asbestos at
a location in the main hospital in 2012, which resulted in
EUR20,549 being paid to IES Limited.

The same company was paid a further EUR6,135 in respect of a
second discovery of asbestos in the main hospital in May 2015.

Cullen Environmental received payment of EUR1,640 from the
hospital in November 2015 following another asbestos find in a lab
elsewhere on the campus.

There is no waste-disposal facility for asbestos in Ireland and
the material must be shipped abroad  -- often to Germany  -- at a
cost of between EUR400 and EUR500 a tonne.

The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) has said the number of
asbestos finds has increased by up to 80% in recent years as more
building renovations are undertaken following the economic
recovery.

Accordingly, the National Cancer Registry recorded 20 cases of
pleural mesothelioma (a lung cancer caused almost exclusively by
inhalation of asbestos) in 2005; and 34 cases in 2014.

The registry expects it to increase to 68 cases per year by 2020
as construction workers exposed to asbestos up to the 1980s, when
use of the material ceased, begin to show symptoms.

Neither Our Lady's Children's Hospital nor a public relations firm
acting on the hospital's behalf provided a statement in relation
to the asbestos discoveries prior to publication.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos Found in South Australia Ash Cloud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that the ash blowing over
Port Augusta from a closed power station does not contain
asbestos, South Australia's environmental watchdog says.

The Environmental Protection Authority SA analysed the fly ash
over the weekend after a former power station worker raised
concerns about it containing the harmful substance.

EPA chief executive Tony Circelli announced the results of testing
on several samples recently taken from the ash dam, saying no
traces of asbestos were found.

"We concluded that there are no asbestos fibres seen," Mr Circelli
told reporters, adding that the full results of the testing would
be released on Tuesday.

The ash is a by-product of the coal-fired Northern Power Station,
which was closed by Flinders Power last May, and it has recently
been whipped up from a dam at the site and into the air.

Meanwhile, the state government announced it will provide free
health checks to Port Augusta locals who are worried about the ill
effects of breathing the ash dust.

Manufacturing Minister Kyam Maher said the government would foot
the bill for the checks for now but he had asked Flinders Power
for reimbursement since the company was responsible for managing
the dust.

"It's not good enough that these dust clouds are eventuating in
Port Augusta and we understand that people are concerned about
health issues with dust," he said in Adelaide.

The minister said Port Augusta residents would able to arrange an
appointment with a health professional using a hotline or see
their own general practitioner for free.

He said while there's no evidence the dust contains toxic or
harmful materials, breathing any sort of dust could be problematic
for people with asthma or respiratory problems.

Opposition health spokesman Stephen Wade said local doctors were
already under the pump and would not be able to cope with the
influx of free checks.

"People are experiencing adverse health effects now. They can't
wait until the end of February or March to get an appointment with
their GPs," he said.

Mr Wade called for the government to establish clinics in the area
with public health physicians to administer the checks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex Companies Fined for Exposing Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two Essex-based companies have been fined after exposing workers
to potentially deadly asbestos over a period of years, despite
being alerted to the risks at their premises.

Basildon Crown Court heard that asbestos was found in poor
condition when Connect Packaging Ltd moved into industrial units
in Manor Road Trading Estate, Benfleet in 2007, but that it failed
to act to control risk. As a result, its employees were exposed to
risk from airborne asbestos fibres.

When Connect Packaging Ltd moved out of the units in January 2009,
it sublet them to Creo Retail Marketing Ltd, another company
within its group, but continued to exercise some control over
maintenance and repair work at the premises.

In 2014, Creo Retail Marketing Ltd undertook its own asbestos
survey following the appointment of a new health and safety
officer. This confirmed continuing risk of exposure to airborne
asbestos fibres from sources including poorly-enscapsulated blue
asbestos (crocidolite).

Despite this, workers remained exposed to these risks while the
companies debated their responsibility for its removal and failed
to act effectively to prevent exposure.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) launched an investigation and
its scientists found asbestos fibres at locations including the
workers' clocking-in point, on rafters above work areas, and
within a stationery cupboard.

When asbestos fibres become airborne, they can be inhaled, and
these tiny fibres are known to cause respiratory diseases and
cancers which can be fatal. The court heard that workers at both
companies were exposed to risk over an extended period of time.

Connect Packaging Ltd, registered at 91 Soho Hill, Birmingham was
fined œ65,000 and ordered to pay œ8,150.23 in costs after pleading
guilty to a breach of Section 4 of the Health and Safety at Work
etc Act 1974.

Creo Retail Marketing Ltd, registered at 350 Euston Road, London,
was fined œ150,000 and ordered to pay œ8,149.63 in costs after
pleading guilty to breaches of Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Nikki Hughes said:

"Connect Packaging Ltd is now under new ownership but while it
held the tenants- repairing-lease on the rented units it had a
legal duty to manage asbestos within these non-domestic premises,
as did its sub-tenant, Creo Retail Marketing Ltd.

"After this asbestos was identified, both companies should have
acted promptly and effectively to control the potentially lethal
risk to which their workers were exposed. Asbestos-related disease
has a long latency period, so we cannot predict the consequences
this failure to manage asbestos may have on their workers' health.

"This prosecution should act as a reminder to all persons in
control of the repair and maintenance of non-domestic premises of
the need to ensure that the correct control measures are put in
place to prevent exposure to asbestos, so far as is reasonably
practicable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DIY, Decorating Pose Asbestos Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Mail Online reported that nearly half of Britons are unconcerned
about the health risks posed when renovating or decorating their
homes, research has found.

The poll of 2,098 Brits found that 48% did not worry about their
health when carrying out home improvements, despite the associated
risks.

Law firm Slater and Gordon, who carried out the research, warned
that tasks such as painting, drilling, sawing and sanding could
unknowingly be exposing people to "deadly asbestos".

The now banned substance was used widely in the building industry,
and is known to cause mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer.

The law firm, who specialise in asbestos related disease, found
that while 73% of those surveyed lived in a property that was 30
years old or more, just 6% had carried out an asbestos survey.

Dominic Smith, from Slater and Gordon's industrial disease team,
said: "With more and more people turning their hand to DIY, it's
important they know the risks and take all possible precautions to
protect themselves.

"Having your home properly checked for asbestos is a simple
measure to safeguard the health of you and your family and could
even save your life."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Slate in Orange's Tests for Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Central Western Daily reported that hundreds of Orange properties
have been tested in the NSW Government's loose-fill asbestos
program as opposed to just a handful in Bathurst.

Orange was one of the 28 Local Government Areas (LGA) identified
as being affected by loose-fill asbestos when the government
launched its Voluntary Purchase and Demolition Program in 2015.

The program allows owners whose properties are found to be
eligible to have the property sample-tested by a licensed asbestos
assessor, free of charge.

There were 2472 registrations in the Orange LGA as of December 20,
2016, according to NSW Fair Trading.

421 tests have been completed and none have confirmed the presence
of loose-fill asbestos.

Of those, 421 tests have been completed and none have confirmed
the presence of loose-fill asbestos.

A further 242 registrations will not proceed because they did not
meet the eligibility criteria, the registration was withdrawn or
it was a duplicate.

Homeowners can still arrange their own testing using an asbestos
assessor licensed by SafeWork NSW. If the test confirms the
presence of loose-fill asbestos, the cost of the test will be
refunded and the homeowner will be included in the program.

"Eligible homeowners will have until July 31, 2017 to submit
private testing results to NSW Fair Trading and be considered for
inclusion in the program," the spokesperson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitter Launches Compensation Claim
---------------------------------------------------
Katie Dickinson, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a
maintenance fitter suffering from asbestos-related cancer has
taken legal action against his former employers.

David Bennett, who is now retired and lives in Croxdale, County
Durham, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2016 - a cancer
of the lung's linings usually caused by exposure to asbestos.

The 63-year-old instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to
investigate how and where he was exposed to asbestos dust.

Now his legal team have issued formal court proceedings against
his former employers after they refused to admit liability for his
illness.

David is appealing for former colleagues who worked with him
during 1969 and 1975, at Smart and Brown (Engineers) Limited and
Smart and Brown Lighting Limited, which were subsidiaries of Thorn
Domestic Appliances Ltd, a company which was subsequently sold to
Electrolux PLC.

The company was a major employer in the Spennymoor, County Durham
area during 1969 to 1975, employing around 5,000 people. The firm
manufactured domestic appliances, including washing machines,
fridges and freezers.

David, who has been married to Patricia for 39 years, said: "My
mesothelioma diagnosis really did knock me back, and now I am
worried about what the future holds for me and Patricia as my
condition gets worse.

"I instructed my legal team to investigate where exactly I was
exposed to asbestos and if my former employers could have
prevented my exposure to it by taking the appropriate safety
measures."

Roger Maddocks, a partner and expert industrial disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell, said: "Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive form
of cancer that's caused by exposure to asbestos dust decades ago
and it can cause a great deal of pain and suffering for victims
like David.

"It can take decades for symptoms to develop and often it is then
difficult for victims to recall in detail how and where they were
exposed.

"We are committed to getting answers for David, and are assisting
him by investigating conditions at his former employers.

"We have been left with no choice but to issue legal proceedings
in the High Court in the hope David, and his wife, Patricia, will
get the answers they want."

Anyone with information is asked to contact Sonia Akram 0191 279
0719 or email Roger.Maddocks@IrwinMitchell.com.

Electrolux has been contacted for a comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. AG Targets Local Asbestos Abatement Co.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that Washington
state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Dec. 29 that his
office has filed charges against Timothy Powell and his business
A1 Asbestos LLC, for allegations of providing false asbestos waste
shipment records to an Okanogan County landfill.

Additional charges include signature forgery on one of the
documents and offering false statements to the Department of Labor
and Industries. According to Ferguson's office, Powell and A1
Asbestos lied about the start dates of asbestos abatement work in
an attempt to circumvent worksite safety inspections.

Disposing of asbestos waste costs more than disposing of general
construction waste. By allegedly falsifying documents, Powell was
able to avoid some of the costs of asbestos disposal, Ferguson
said.

"Strict rules governing the disposal of asbestos waste exist to
protect workers and the public, and they must be followed,"
Ferguson said.

Assistant attorney general Josh Choate is handling the case for
the state and Ferguson's office is working at the behest of the
Chelan County Prosecutor's Office.

Ferguson regards protecting the environment as a major priority.
Since 2013, he has secured more than $900,000 in restitution
orders from environmental cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hidden Asbestos Drops $19K Bill on Homeowners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Donovan, writing for CBC News, reported that following an
unexpected $19,000 bill related to their new house, a couple in
Colchester County have a warning for other homebuyers: an
inspection, even one that tests for asbestos, isn't a fail-safe.

Last year, Sandra Taylor and her husband bought a Middle Stewiacke
home built in 1966. They had it inspected prior to purchase and
topically tested for asbestos, tests that came back negative. They
couldn't open the walls for further examination as they didn't own
the house yet.

But once they did take possession and opened the walls for
electrical rewiring, asbestos was found in the drywall and crack
filler that would need to be removed.

"We just got the bill [for removal] yesterday," Taylor told CBC
Nova Scotia's Information Morning on Thursday.  "It was $19,895."

'We're a little stuck'

Asbestos isn't dangerous unless it's disturbed, and doesn't need
to be removed in many houses that contain it. But the asbestos in
Taylor's home had to be disturbed to complete the rewiring
required to insure the house.

Having only made three mortgage payments, Taylor and her husband
faced a choice of either selling the house at a significant loss,
as they would have to disclose the asbestos, or repair it at a
substantial cost.

"We're a little stuck between a rock and a hard place."

Sandra Taylor house
Taylor estimates the total cost of repairs, including abatement,
rewiring and reconstruction, could be $30,000. (Sandra Taylor)

A cautionary tale

The couple chose to repair the home, although Taylor estimates the
total cost of repairs, including the removal of asbestos,
electrical rewiring and reconstruction, could total close to
$30,000.

"Everything [in the house] had to be taken down to the studs."

Taylor said because the people she and her husband bought the
house from say they weren't aware of the asbestos, and the company
that returned the negative test were not contractually obligated
to test for what was inside the walls, neither is liable for
repairs.

Meanwhile, their home insurance doesn't cover the costs. It only
funds the removal of asbestos found because of another issue, such
as water damage or a house fire.

Taylor said they're also not eligible for provincial emergency
repair grants, because those only cover homeowners who have owned
their home for at least a year -- and in any case, those programs
don't cover asbestos removal.

"It's a very cautionary tale unfortunately," said Taylor. "And not
a happy one."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Biopsy Essential To Correct Diagnosis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ozge Ozkaya, writing for Mesothelioma Research News, reported that
the possibility of cancer should be investigated in all cases of
workplace asbestos exposure, researchers report in a case study.
They also argue that a lung biopsy is essential to distinguish
between mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma, so that the proper
treatment can be given.

According to Dr. Agripina Rascu and co-authors of the study,
"Distinction between mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma based on
immunohistochemistry in a patient with asbestos bodies in
bronchoalveolar fluid  -- case report," asbestosis, or chronic
lung disease caused by the inhalation of asbestos, could be
diagnosed using screening methods that detect asbestos bodies in
the lungs, but cancer should also be systematically assessed.  The
study was published in the Romanian Journal of Morphology and
Embryology.

The authors report the case of a 61-year-old man who was admitted
to the Clinic of Occupational Diseases at Clinical Hospital
Colentina in Bucharest, Romania, in November 2014. He had chronic
lung disease complicated by fluid accumulation in the space
surrounding his right lung.

Two years earlier, the man had been treated for tuberculosis, and
almost a year after that, in December 2013, a chest X-ray detected
a nodule measuring 3 cm in his right lung, but he refused further
investigation at the time.

Bronchoalveolar lavage, where salt water is injected into a lung
section and then immediately sucked out to obtain cells from the
air sacs, revealed the presence of asbestos bodies in his lungs.

An analysis of the man's occupational history found that he worked
in the asbestos-cement industry for 29 years, between 1978 and
2007.

The retention time of the asbestos particles in his lungs was
calculated as 36 years (from 1978 to 2014). Based on this
information, the man was diagnosed with asbestosis and possible
mesothelioma. Further analysis, however, revealed that the lung
cancer was mucinous adenocarcinoma, a cancer that starts in the
epithelial cells that line certain organs.

The authors concluded that fluid retention in the space
surrounding the lungs in patients with asbestos exposure may not
be a sign of mesothelioma, and a careful evaluation of a lung
biopsy sample is essential for accurate diagnosis.

"Malignant mesothelioma development was initially suspected but
immunohistochemistry examination of pleural samples established
the positive diagnosis a lung adenocarcinoma with secondary
malignant pleural effusion," they wrote. "Occupational cancer must
be suspected in all cases with workplace asbestosis exposure."
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than
100,000 people worldwide die of asbestos-related diseases every
year, with lung cancer being the most common disease related to
asbestosis. Workplace asbestos exposure is regulated in many
countries, including Romania, but new cases caused by past
exposure are still being diagnosed.


                            *********

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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *