CAR_Public/170127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, January 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 20



                            Headlines

319 WEST 51ST: "Lligutchuzhca" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
400 WEST 14TH: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
ABM FACILITY: Faces "Davis" Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Overcharged for Proranolol, Plumbers Fund Claims
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices

AGILE THERAPEUTICS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
AMERICAN HONDA: "McKown" Sues for Denied Warranty on Wiring Defect
ARAMARK CAMPUS: "Duval" Alleges Discrimination, Denied OT Pay
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
AUTOMAX PREOWNED: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in Penn. Common Pleas Ct.

AVI FOOD: Monneyham Alleges Non-Payment of Overtime Work
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
BELLS NURSING: Faces "McCurry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BHP BILLITON: Faces Class Action Over Samarco Mine Venture
BLUE NILE: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger Deal

BONA 1372: "Reyes" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
BRAY & SCARFF: "Coates" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BRISTOL-MYERS: High Court to Tackle Plavix Jurisdiction Issue
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
CAMROS HOLDINGS: Molina Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT

CANADA: Could Face Suit Over Indigenous Youth Suicides
CANADA: Quebec Drivers File Suit Over Traffic Ticket Premiums
CANADA: Quebec Solitary Confinement Class Action Certified
CANADA: Former Crown Wards in Ontario File Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Douglas" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia

CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Miller Sues Over United Bankshares Merger
CARIO INC: Faces "Condo" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
CERTO'S PORK STORE: Munguia Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit Over 401(k) Plan Offered to Employees
CL IRRIGATION: "Carrasco" Suit Claims Overtime Pay

COMCAST CORP: Panarielo Sues Over  Service Protection Plan
CONCEPT AUTO: Faces "Portuondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CROSSROADS SUPER BUFFET: "Calle" Seeks Payment of Wages & OT Pay
CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
DAKOTA TRAVEL: Breach of Contract, Deductions Hit in "Diaz" Suit

DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL: Sued Over Collection Calls by "Bell"
DISH NETWORK: Hit With $20.5MM Verdict in Telemarketing Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: MPD Sued for Unconstitutional Tactics
DOLLAR GENERAL: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement Check Distribution to Begin

ELAN CORP: April 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIAT CHRYSLER: Fasching Alleges False Advertising of EcoDiesel(R)
FIAT CHRYSLER: Koskie Minsky Files Emissions Class Suit in Canada
FITNESS INT'L: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Withdrawals
FMS INC: Faces "Callan" Suit in Eastern District of New York

FREEDOM TRAILERS: Faces "Wardlaw" Suit in S.D. of Georgia
FULKRUM TECHNICAL: Faces "Walock" Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
GB PREMIUM OCTG: Faces "Wishard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Suit Over Cal. Labor Code Violation

HAN Y. INC: Lin Alleges Violation of FLSA
HOFFMAN LAROCHE: NJ High Court Reinstates $25MM Accutane Verdict
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Suit
ILLUMINA INC: "McLeod" Sues Over Share Price Drop
J. C. PENNEY: Objection to Report and Recommendation Pending

J. C. PENNEY: ERISA Class Action Settlement Still Pending
J. C. PENNEY: Settlement of Calif. and Illinois Actions Pending
JSC INC: "Boyce" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
JCS MILITARY SUPPORT: "Brandley" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
JOHN BATISTA: "Day" Files Labor Suit, Claims Unpaid Overtime

JP MAIN: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
KALESMENO CORP: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
KEMPHARM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
KPMG LLP: Overtime Pay Sought in "Meadows" Labor Suit
LANDS' END: Gorss Motels Files TCPA Class Action Over Junk Faxes

LANDTEK GROUP: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LCOR INCORPORATED: "Marshall" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
LEVEL 3: Faces "Amedee" Lawsuit Over Sale to CenturyLink
LIMITED STORES: O'Rourke Files Adversary Suit on Behalf of Class
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Parshall Challenges HIG Capital Merger

LOUISIANA: School Board to Join Class Action Against DOTD
LUCAVA INC: Faces "Zamorano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MANAGED RECOVERY: Faces "Strak" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina
MATTEL: Bakersfield Woman Sues Over Non-Hatching Hatchimals
MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Case

MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 4,300 INFUSE Litigation Claims
MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 7,600 of Pelvic Mesh Claims
MEDTRONIC PLC: Appeal in West Virginia Pipe Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC PLC: Decision from Minnesota Court Expected in 2017
MEDTRONIC PLC: Defending Against HeartWare Class Suit

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MERCURY CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Sought in "Cruz" Suit
MOTOR VILLAGE: Proposed Settlement Reached, CPT Group Announced
MUNYAN RESTORATION: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid OT
N.H. INC: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Payment of Overtime Work

NEW YORK: Law Dept. Settles Class Action Over Summonses
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Melting Dashboard
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Cancemi" Suit in E. D. N.Y.
NOVO NORDISK: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action

OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION: Faces "Micholle" Securities Class Action
ORACLE AMERICA: Labor Dept. Files Hiring Discrimination Case
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Illegally Converts Grants to Loans, Suit Says
PETROBRAS: Investors Launch Compensation Case in Netherlands
PREMIER ORGANICS: Insurers Refuse to Cover Class Action

PROSPECT HALL CATERERS: "Daniel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PULTE HOMES: "Bowdy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
QUALCOMM INC: Bornstein, et al. Allege Anticompetitive Conduct
QUALCOMM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
RENT-A-CENTER: Sacramento Man Sues Over Labor Laws Violations

RETAIL CENTERS: Faces Paradise Wire Suit Over AFIN Merger
RISHAVENA INC: "Avril" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions
S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit for Violation of Labor Code
SALLY BEAUTY: Faces "Ibrahim" Suit in Central Dist. of California
SALTY GATOR: Glass, et al. Seek to Recover Wages Under FLSA

SANOFI US: Castillo Files Anti-trust Suit Over Insulin Glargine
SARAVIA FAMILY: "Ruiz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D. Mass.
SEATTLE GENETICS: Faces "Patel" Securities Class Action
SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SHIPRA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Pease" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

SIRIUS XM: Dewey Pegno's Kramarsky Examines Flo & Eddie Opinion
SOUTHERN CO: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Medley Claims
SPIN MASTER: Faces Class Action Over Hatchimals Toys
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Sues Over Unauthorized Withdrawals

ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Cohen Milstein Pushes for Counsel Nod
STATE FARM: Collision Repairers Want Stay in RICO Case Lifted
SUSHIYA ON SUNSET: Violates Cal. Labor Code, Santiago Alleges
SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL: Flood Sues Over Firm Sale to CEO Zhang
TAKATA CORP: $1BB Settlement Won't Impact Air Bag Class Action

TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Class Action Moved to New York
TILLY'S INC: "Christiansen" Settled and Dismissed
TILLY'S INC: Settlement of "Rebolledo" Case Wins Final Approval
TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
TILLY'S INC: Court Dismissed Skylar Ward Lawsuit

TIME WARNER: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Gubala"
TODISCO SERVICES: Faces "Lemay" Suit Over Unpaid OT Work
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Canadian Taxi Drivers' Class Action Okayed
ULTIMATE CLASS: "Korcz" Suit Alleges Violation of N.Y. Labor Laws
UNCLE CHUCK'S: Notaro Alleges Labor Law Violations

UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Microsoft's Data Privacy Suit
VENDOMATIC INC: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
VISA: Court Upholds Decision on Fee Sharing Agreement Issue
VOLKSWAGEN AG: WSU's Peter Henning Comments on Criminal Pleas
VOLVO CARS: Installed Defective Rear Cameras, Obergfell Alleges

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Johnson" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
WALMART: Class Members to Receive Settlement Notice
WESTERN REFINING: Shareholder Challenges Merger Suit in Texas
WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Shomberg" Class Suit in Texas
WINDSOR & TECUMSEH: Allowed to See List of Bingo Plaintiffs

ZOOMER INC: Exploits Consumer Data from Partners, Hardesty Says

* 9th Cir. Rejects Ascertainability as Class Cert. Requirement
* Court Mandates Disclosure of Third-Party Class Action Funding
* Mandatory Arbitration Clauses to Face Challenges
* More Workplace Class Action Litigation Expected in 2017
* Tort Reformers Target Missouri Following Gargantuan Verdicts

* US Securities Class Action Filings Up 32% in 2016
* Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Expected to Rise in 2017


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Reverses Remand of "Zeringue"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spiewak" Remanded to NY State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Bids to Quash Subpoena Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tennessee Law in "Murray"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RCH Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Hastings"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Sup. Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Floyd"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Appeals Ct. Affirms Statutory Employee Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Reverses Reduction of Damages Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Closed Until Feb. Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Seeks Chancery Seal on Manager's Ouster

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work to Begin at Davidson Asbestos Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $80MM Asbestos Settlement Reached in Kansas City
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Still Fights vs. Asbestos-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davidson Mill Redevelopment Unearths Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Discusses Final Cleanup Plan for BoRit Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unpaid Wages Allegations Hit Cleanup Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Pres. Protests Choice of EPA Administrator
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Illegally Dumped Near Primary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Mishap Reveals Asbestos at SCC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Hits Handyman with GBP1,400 Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Reitz Union
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Take-Home" Asbestos is Duty of Care in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Tenants Move Out Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lancashire Man Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Asbestos Victims to Get $25MM From State

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion Seeks to Expose Deposition Linked to Memo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ann Siddons Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Finds Mesothelioma Incidence in China
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newcastle Asbestos Victim Fights for Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Waldingfield Man Dies of Asbestos Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fly-tippers Cost Taxpayers GBP5,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Veterans Hall to Replace Flooring
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Kinder Site Sparks Tests


                            *********


319 WEST 51ST: "Lligutchuzhca" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Manuel Lligutchuzhca, Carlos Alejandro-Peral and Marcos
Alonso Reyes, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. 319 West 51st St. Restaurant, Inc., BKUK!
Corporation, Besim Kukaj and Marcello Coello, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00166, (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "gap time"
wages, unpaid "spread of hours" premium in excess of ten hours and
civil penalties pursuant to New York Labor Laws, New York State
Wage Theft Prevention Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs worked as bus boys and food servers for the Defendants'
Mexican restaurant under the name "Maria Pia." 319 West 51st St.
Restaurant, Inc. and BKUK! Corporation are owned and operated by
Besim Kukaj and Marcello Coello. They jointly operate Maria Pia.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


400 WEST 14TH: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hernan Reyes, Marlon Andres Armijos Carrion, Aaron Miguel Flores
and Agustin Cabrera, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 400 West 14th Inc. (d/b/a Gaslight),
William C. Reddy, David A Curran, Pete Collins and Matthew Reines,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00302 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2017),
is brought against the Defendant for payment of minimum wages and
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Complaint says that Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants at
tip-credit rate.

The Defendants operate a cocktail lounge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABM FACILITY: Faces "Davis" Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ABM FACILITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00117-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 17, 2017),
alleges that Defendant failed to provide them required notices of
their right to continued health care coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

ABM Facility Services, Inc., doing business as ABM Building Value,
provides integrated facility maintenance and management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-224-0431
     Fax: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com
             mk@wfclaw.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Overcharged for Proranolol, Plumbers Fund Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries LTD., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Inc., UDL Laboratories, Inc., ENDO International PLC, PAR
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., Qualities Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.
and Rouses Point Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00144-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 10, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants to recover overcharges.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover the overcharges and seeks other
relief arising out of Defendants' conspiracy to charge supra-
competitive prices for proranolol capsules during the period from
April 18, 2013 to the present ("Propranolol Capsules Class
Period") and for propranolol tablets during the period from March
18, 2015 to the present.

Defendants marketed and sold generic Propranolol tablets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brent W. Landau, Esq.
   Gary I. Smith, Esq.
   Hausfeld LLP
   325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: 215-985-3270
   Fax: 215-985-2371
   Email: blandau@hausfeld.com
          gsmith@hausfeld.com

        - and -

   Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
   Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
   Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
   Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
   Hausfeld LLP
   600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 633-1908
   Fax: (415) 358-4980
   Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
          bsweeney@hausfeld.com
          clebsock@hausfeld.com

        - and -

   Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
   Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
   Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
   Hausfeld LLP
   1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 540-7200
   Fax: (202) 540-7201
   Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
          sgosselin@hausfeld.com
          jkenney@hausfeld.com

        - and -

   Lee Albert, Esq.
   Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
   Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
   122 E. 42nd Street
   Suite 2920
   New York, NY 10168
   Tel: (212) 682-5340
   Fax: (212) 884-0988
   Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com
          glinkh@glancylaw.com

        - and -

   Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
   Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
   Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP
   185 Madison Avenue
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 213-8311
   Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
          drehns@hrsclaw.com


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cook at The Lewisville Texan Journal reports Lewisville-
based Adeptus Health Inc. has been served a $5 million class
action lawsuit for deceptive business practices.

Adeptus is accused of deceiving consumers into believing its
facilities are similar to urgent care facilities and then charging
emergency-care-level costs. The primary complaint against the
company stems from its facility fee. Without informing its
patients beforehand, Adeptus charges every patient a facilities
fee that can be as much as $6,000 and sometimes more.

Most patients are not expecting this additional fee, because
urgent care centers and doctors offices do not charge facilities
fees. Adeptus has collected hundreds of millions of dollars due to
the facilities fee, according to the complaint.

Adeptus facilities, marketed as First Choice Emergency Room in
Texas, are freestanding emergency medical facilities that are
staffed by emergency physicians and have laboratory and radiology
equipment. This equipment includes CT scanners, ultrasound
machines and X-ray machines.

David Adkinson, a physician in Colorado, is the plaintiff in the
case. Adkinson and over 100 other individuals are members of the
class action lawsuit. Adkinson went to one of Adeptus' facilities
in Colorado Springs, Colorado in February of 2016 after falling
while shoveling snow. After a five minute trip to the facility,
Adkinson was given a bill for over $2,000, including over $1,200
in facilities fees.

Adkinson has demanded a jury trial which would take place in the
Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas, due to Adeptus'
principal place of business being located in Lewisville.

This is not the first class action lawsuit filed against Adeptus.
Following a story from the NBC affiliate in Denver about an
Adeptus patient being charged a facilities fee of $6,237, multiple
class action lawsuits were filed against the company for predatory
billing practices.

All information in the story is from the complaint filed by David
Adkinson on Jan. 4.


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against Agile Therapeutics, Inc.. Investors, who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares between March 9, 2016 and January 3,
2017 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the March 7, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

Agile is a pharmaceutical company that makes and sells
prescription female contraceptive products.

On January 3, 2017, Agile revealed new information related to its
Phase 3 SECURE study assessing Agile's combined hormonal
contraceptive patch product, Twirla. The FDA wanted the study
after it rejected Agile's initial marketing application in 2013.

The Company stated that 2% of study participants suffered "serious
adverse events" including "deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary
embolism, gallbladder disease, ectopic pregnancy, and depression."
Furthermore, 51.4% of subjects left the study.

When this information was revealed to the public, the value of
Agile stock fell almost 64%, causing investors severe harm.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact:

         Lundin Law PC
         Brian Lundin, Esq.
         Telephone: 888-713-1033
         Facsimile: 888-713-1125
         E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com


AMERICAN HONDA: "McKown" Sues for Denied Warranty on Wiring Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
James R. McKown and Margaret J. McKown, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda
Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00204 (C.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2017), seeks actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, punitive and consequential damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on such monetary relief, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief, including, without limitation, an order that
requires Honda to repair, recall, and/or replace their vehicles
and to extend the applicable warranties to a reasonable period of
time, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief resulting from breach of implied and express warranty,
unjust enrichment and violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs purchased a Pre-Owned 2014 Honda Accord Coupe from Jay
Wolfe Honda in Olathe and a Pre-Owned 2013 Honda Accord from
O'Neill Honda in Overland Park, Kansas. Both were damaged when
rodents chewed on its electrical wiring. It was then found out
that the wiring insulation is soy-based, thus making it palatable
to rodents. The dealership refused to honor warranty for said
vehicles.

Honda is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California and has its principal place of business at 1919
Torrance Boulevard in Torrance, California. It is an overseas
subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Liakos, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 331-8224
      Fax: (646) 843-760
      Email: jliakos@napolilaw.com

             - and -

      Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
      Andrew Dressel, Esq.
      360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      Fax: (646) 843-7603
      Email: pmaslo@napolilaw.com
             adressel@napolilaw.com


ARAMARK CAMPUS: "Duval" Alleges Discrimination, Denied OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Marceline Duval, Plaintiff, v.
Aramark Campus, LLC, Aramark Services, Inc., Aramark Food Service
Corporation and Robert Prokopiak, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00113, (E.D. N.Y., January 9, 2017), seeks damages to
redress the injuries she suffered as a result of being
discriminated against by her employer on the basis of her race,
together with retaliation and unlawful termination under the Civil
Rights Act through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as
well as overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aramark operated a food facility located at the Suffolk Community
College at 533 College Road, New York, New York 11784, where
Prokopiak is a Food Service Director.

Plaintiff worked as a "Food Services Worker." Defendants allegedly
terminated Plaintiff because of her race and color and in
retaliation for Plaintiff's allegation of discrimination and her
claim for overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek T. Smith, Esq.
      DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 391-4790


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm, Robbins Arroyo LLP, on Jan. 23
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Arrowhead securities between January
12, 2015 and November 29, 2016, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Arrowhead's officers and
directors.  Arrowhead develops novel drugs to treat intractable
diseases in the United States.


AUTOMAX PREOWNED: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in Penn. Common Pleas Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Automax Preowned
Inc. The case is captioned as CABRERA, CARLOS, the Plaintiff, v.
AUTOMAX PREOWNED INC., the Defendant, Case No. CI-17-00322 (Penn.
Ct. of Common Pleas, Jan. 18, 2017).

Automax Preowned is New England's largest independent pre-owned
superstore, with over 400 late-model cars in stock.


AVI FOOD: Monneyham Alleges Non-Payment of Overtime Work
--------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Mooneyham, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated persons v. AVI Food Systems, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00103 (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2017), seeks
payment of overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours and
minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio
Wage Law.

Defendant AVI Food Systems, Inc. is a food-service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Drew Legando, Esq.
   Jack Landskroner, Esq.
   Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
   Tom Merriman, Esq.
   LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
   1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: (216) 522-9000
   Fax: (216) 522-9007
   Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
          jack@lgmlegal.com
          edjerse@lgmlegal.com
          tom@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

   Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
   Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
   Christopher Timmel, Esq.
   KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
   Two international Drive, Suite 350
   Rye Brooke, NY 10573
   Tel: (914) 934-9200
   Fax: (914) 934-9220
   Email: seth@klafterolsen.com
          fran@klafterolsen.com
          christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

   Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
   Jason Rathod, Esq.
   MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
   412 H Street NE, Suite 302
   Washington, DC 20002
   Tel: (202) 470-3520
   Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
          jrathod@classlawdc.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Jan. 24 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class
(the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Banc of California, Inc. ("Banc of California"
or the "Company") (BANC) securities between October 29, 2015, and
January 20, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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,
including: (1) that the Company had extensive ties to an alleged
"fraudster" named Jason Galanis ("Galanis"); (2) that, given
Galanis' history, the Company's ties to Galanis created
substantial regulatory risk; (3) that revelation of Galanis' ties
to the Company could cause a substantial decline in the market
price of the Company's securities; (4) that the Company allegedly
misled investors concerning the Company's connections with
Galanis; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about Banc of California's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On January 23, 2017, Banc of California announced the resignation
of its CEO, Steven A. Sugarman, and that the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation
into whether the Company had misled investors in its response to
an October 2016 Seeking Alpha report disclosing a connection
between the Banc of California and an alleged fraudster named
Jason Galanis.

On this news the Company's shares fell $1.50 per share, or nearly
10%, to close on January 23, 2017 at $14.65 per share, on
unusually high volume of over 6 million shares.

If you purchased shares of Banc of California 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


BELLS NURSING: Faces "McCurry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah McCurry and Dwan Wills, Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Bells Nursing Home, Inc. d/b/a
Bells Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Crockett County Nursing
Home, Inc. d/b/a Alamo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and
Harber-Laman, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01010 (W.D. Tenn.,
January 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason J. Yasinsky, Esq.
   A. Parker Trotz, Esq.
   NAHON, SAHAROVICH & TROTZ, PLC
   488 S. Mendenhall
   Memphis, TN 38117
   Tel: 901-683-7000
   Email: jyasinsky@nstlaw.com


BHP BILLITON: Faces Class Action Over Samarco Mine Venture
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that BHP
Billiton and its partner in the troubled Samarco mine venture,
Vale, are facing a fight with its bankers after a class action was
filed in New York on behalf of the holders of $2.2 billion in
notes used to fund the disastrous project.

Brazilian Bank Banco Safra SA has filed the claim on behalf of
itself and other unnamed noteholders alleging the joint venture
entity Samarco Mineracao breached its disclosure requirements.
Samarco Mineracao is a join

Samarco's chief executive Ricardo Vescovi has also been named as a
defendant alongside Samarco.  BHP and Vale, which each own half of
Samarco are not listed as defendants.

It is believed international banks, including a host of US banks,
also hold interests in the notes that have a 10-year term and were
issued in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

It's the second class action filed in New York following the dam
collapse at the mine that killed 19 people, the first being a
class action brought on behalf of holders of BHP's American issued
shares.  Staff from BHP and Vale are also facing criminal charges
in Brazil over the collapse.

BHP said it, its partner Vale and their jointly owned Samarco unit
had set a deadline to settle billions of dollars in compensation
claims stemming from the disaster filed in Brazil.

Warnings 'ignored'

The fresh noteholders' US claim alleges Samarco assured
noteholders of its environmental protection efforts despite
ignoring repeated warnings that foresaw the deadly dam collapse.

"[The] defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects," the claim alleges.

It adds this was done "to defraud in connection with the purchase
and sale of securities".

The noteholders allege that during the first two trading days
after news of the dam collapse emerged on November 5, the value of
the Samarco notes plummeted.

The value of the "2022" note fell by $US25.77 ($34.03) or about
30.63 per cent, to close at $58.38.  The "2023" note dived $35.86,
or 39.74 per cent to $54.36, and the "2024" note dropped $30.42 or
35.18 per cent to $56.07, according to the claim.

The value of the notes dropped further on November 30 when the
Brazilian government announced it would commence legal proceedings
against Samarco, BHP and Vale over the dam collapse, the
noteholders allege, according to the claim.

On that day the value of the "2022" note dived $10.13, or 21.6 per
cent to close at $36.79, the "2023" note slid $11.58, or 24.57 per
cent, to $35.55 and the "2024" note fell $10.58, or 22.54 per
cent, to $36.34.

The value of the securities have since improved to around $68
each.

Rating stable

On Jan. 23, ratings agency Standard & Poors reaffirmed BHP's
credit rating and upgraded its outlook to stable from negative.

The class action is open to any entity that purchased securities
in one or all of the notes between October 31, 2012 and November
30, 2015.

A spokesman for Samarco declined to comment.  BHP and Vale also
declined to comment.

In November, BHP applied to the court to have the shareholder case
dismissed on the grounds the claim has no basis in fact and that
the shareholders are seeking to "capitalise on this tragedy at
Samarco's dam by pursuing a securities fraud claim against the
indirect parent company of one of Samarco's shareholders, BHP
Billiton, and several BHP Billiton executives."


BLUE NILE: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bates, writing for JCK, reports that Blue Nile shareholder
Barbara L. Hale has filed a class action suit trying to block Bain
Capital's bid to acquire the e-tailer, Blue Nile said in a Jan. 24
filing with the Securities and Exchange Committee.

The suit, filed Jan. 13 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserts
that the company's proxy materials failed to disclose material
information concerning its financial projections and analysis of
similar transactions.  The suit seeks an order blocking the
merger, a finding that the board breached its fiduciary duties,
and award of attorney's fees and other expenses.

The filing said that while the board denies the allegations in the
complaint, it has added a supplement to its definitive proxy
statement "solely to alleviate the costs, risks, distraction, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and any potential delay of
the proposed Merger."


BONA 1372: "Reyes" Lawsuit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Reyes and Gissela Lopez, on Behalf of Themselves and
Similarly Situated Employees, Plaintiffs, vs. Bona 1372, Inc.,
Bona 1900, Inc., and Hnreck Nazarian a/k/a Nazarian Enterprises
d/b/a IHOP Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00016 (E.D. Tex., January
17, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs were required to work hours in
excess of 40 hours per week, for which they were not paid lawful
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bona 1372, Inc. is a restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David D. Reynard, Jr., Esq.
     T. Lynn Walden, Esq.
     WALDENREYNARD, P.L.L.C.
     Post Office Box 7486
     Beaumont, TX 77726
     Phone: (409) 833-0202
     Fax: (409) 832-3564


BRAY & SCARFF: "Coates" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Coates, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. Bray & Scarff, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00067, (D. Md., January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant is engaged in the sale and maintenance of household
appliances providing custom installation and remodelling. It owns
and operates several retail establishments in Maryland, Virginia
and the District of Columbia, thirteen stores total in all.

Plaintiff was employed as an appliance technician, servicing its
customers at home, to which the technician is required to travel.
He claims overtime for time spent in traveling to office and
customer sites as well as hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per
week, usually due to extended installation times.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: High Court to Tackle Plavix Jurisdiction Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 19 agreed to take up a key business
dispute over a California court ruling that made it easier for
nonresidents to join in mass class action lawsuits.

The case, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, is
one of several jurisdiction-related petitions filed with the court
in recent months, signaling the increasing concern raised by
business groups about being sued in states that have little
connection to their products or the underlying dispute.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed briefs in several
jurisdiction cases, including Bristol-Myers.  Its brief in the
case warned that the trend "could well expose corporations that do
business nationwide to what amounts to general personal
jurisdiction in all fifty states."

Andrew Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, who
authored the Chamber's brief, told The National Law Journal last
month, "There's just a lot of litigation on personal jurisdiction
lately.  Businesses want predictability, they want certainty."

Some of the petitions raising the issue have been denied review,
but others are still pending.  The court granted cert in BNSF
Railway Co. v. Tyrell, a case in which out-of-state residents were
allowed to sue for injuries in Montana courts.  Last month the
court granted review in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group, a
somewhat different jurisdictional case that will decide where
patent infringement lawsuits can be brought under the patent venue
statute.

In the Bristol-Myers case, the California Supreme Court ruled that
both in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs could sue the
pharmaceutical company in California for injuries and deaths
caused by Plavix, the blood-thinning drug.

The company had sought to exclude non-California plaintiffs from
the litigation, but a majority of justices ruled that California
courts had "specific jurisdiction" because Bristol-Myers conducted
significant research, sales and marketing within the state.  "We
conclude the company's California activities are sufficiently
related to the nonresident plaintiffs' suits."
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal --
neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells petitioned the
high court on behalf of the drug company.  On Jan. 19 Mr. Katyal
tweeted that is was the 10th Hogan petition the court has granted
this term.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with related jurisdictional issue in
Daimler Chrysler v. Bauman, the 2014 ruling that sought to narrow
jurisdiction to states in which the defendant company is
incorporated or its headquarters are located.  But business
advocates assert that lower courts have made a hash of the Daimler
decision, in part because of Supreme Court precedents that send
conflicting signals.

"Because the pervasive confusion in the lower courts is traceable
to language in this court's own decisions, only this court can
provide clarity," states a brief in the Bristol-Myers case filed
by the Product Liability Advisory Council.  Alan Untereiner --
auntereiner@robbinsrussell.com -- of Robbins, Russell, Englert,
Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber was counsel of record on the brief.


CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
report that an Auburn man alleges a Novato debt collector has
harassed him with calls meant for another person.

Paul Lee filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated on Dec. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California against California Service Bureau
Inc. and Doe individuals citing the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he started
receiving calls on his cellular telephone in March 2016 from the
defendants seeking another individual.  He alleges he informed the
defendants they had the wrong number, but they kept calling.

The plaintiff holds California Service Bureau Inc. and Doe
individuals responsible because the defendants allegedly continued
to make calls despite plaintiffs' explicit demand to stop the
improper calls and unlawfully utilized an automatic telephone
dialing system.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, certify case as a class action, statutory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and all other relief
that the court deems just.  He is represented by John P.
Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg LLP in Los
Angeles and Jarrett L. Ellzey of Hughes Ellzey LLP in Houston,
Texas.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-02945


CAMROS HOLDINGS: Molina Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirlen Molina, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Adriana Camusso, individually, Roberto
Camusso, individually, Camros Holdings, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Rocnati, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Chevron
and XYZ Entities 1-10 (fictitious names of unknown liable
entities), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20165-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
January 13, 2017), seeks payment of overtime for work performed in
excess of 40 hours and minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Florida Minimum Wage.

Defendants operate gasoline stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andres F. Fernandez, Esq.
   Jeanette Escudero, Esq.
   Kevin P. Ackerman, Esq.
   BERENS, FERNANDEZ & ASSOC.
   2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd., PH-2
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: 305-329-2990


CANADA: Could Face Suit Over Indigenous Youth Suicides
------------------------------------------------------
Jody Porter at CBC News reports it's time for First Nations
leaders to consider a class action lawsuit against the federal
government on behalf of Indigenous young people who have died by
suicide, says Isadore Day, the Ontario regional chief with the
Assembly of First Nations.

Day's comments came as Wapekeka First Nation revealed that it had
asked for help to prevent a suicide pact in the remote community,
months before two girls, both 12, died by suicide in January.

Health Canada said the request to fund a $376,706 community-based
suicide prevention plan came in September when the year's budget
had already been allocated, but money for the program was found
this month.

Wapekeka sought prevention help before suicides of 2 girls
"It's always predictable what the government will say in these
types of circumstances," Day said in an interview with CBC News.
"However, we don't have time for this any more. We're facing an
epidemic in many of our communities."

More than 500 people have died by suicide in the past 30 years in
the 49 First Nations that make up the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in
northern Ontario, according to statistics collected by the First
Nations. The highest rate of suicide is among children aged 10 to
14.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Joshua Frogg, who
represents Wapekeka First Nation, Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand
Chief Alvin Fiddler and Mushkegowuk Grand Chief Jonathan Solomon
on January 19 afternoon.

The private meeting came after the First Nations leaders held a
news conference in Ottawa, accusing the federal government of
"dragging its feet," and ignoring the deaths of children in their
communities.

"The prime minister acknowledged what the communities are facing
in their direct engagements with the government, and committed to
working together to improve the situation on the ground and better
track progress," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement
about the meeting.

But Day said time is running out for rhetoric and "bantering back
and forth," while children die.

Unequal services

"I believe we've come to a juncture on this issue of suicide where
we need to look at, what is the justice and the legal recourse for
those who have lost their lives to suicide?" he said, suggesting a
class action suit against the federal government could force
action.

Last year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the
federal government discriminates against First Nations children on
reserves by failing to provide the same level of child welfare
services that exist elsewhere.

Liberals will support action on First Nations child welfare
The family doctor for Wapekeka First Nation said the inequity of
the services First Nations children receive contributes to the
suicide crisis.

"You have this triple threat," said Dr. Michael Kirlew, who also
attended January 19's news conference.

"You have inadequately funded health care, you have inadequately
funded education, and you have inadequately funded child services
[in First Nations]. Those three things serve to suffocate First
Nations children."


CANADA: Quebec Drivers File Suit Over Traffic Ticket Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that when Quebec
drivers are convicted of a traffic offence with demerit points,
their licence premiums are automatically increased by the Quebec
automobile insurance board (SAAQ).

One Montreal motorist is on a mission to put a stop to that
practice by seeking a class-action lawsuit against the government.

"I think it's unfair to pay double like double jeopardy,"
Steve Abihsira said.

The Cote-St-Luc resident is the first to admit he was at fault
when he reached for his cellphone while driving in December 2015.

"I was coming back from a hockey game from the Bell Centre. I got
the ticket at the red light around 11:15 p.m. The cop was in the
middle of the street," Mr. Abihsira said.

He didn't contest the ticket and willingly paid the $126 fine.

But what he can't accept is the extra $70 charged by the SAAQ when
he renewed his driver's licence a few months later.  His SAAQ
annual insurance contribution fees jumped from $55 to $124.

"I just want justice to be made for all the taxpayers,"
Mr. Abihsira said.

Last year alone, the Quebec government raked in $65 million in
added payments tied to demerit points lost by 1.3 million
motorists.  The Montreal lawyer behind Ticket Legal Inc. is now
gearing up for a fight.

"You're looking at, I would say hundreds, if not half a billion
dollars here at play," Joey Zukran said.

The class-action lawsuit can include motorists who were ticketed
up to three years ago, which means the number of motorists
eligible for compensation could add up to five million.

But there's still a long road ahead before the case gets to court.
First, a judge has to give the green light at an authorization
hearing and then the same judge will decide what kind of
compensation is warranted.

"We looked at the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,
we consulted with a constitutionalist, an expert in the field, who
confirmed that article 11H of our constitution provides that one
cannot be charged twice for the same infraction which is exactly
what happened here," Mr. Zukran said.


CANADA: Quebec Solitary Confinement Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Dehaas, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been certified in Quebec that alleges federal prisons
are abusing a practice known as "administrative segregation,"
which the lawsuit's backers call "solitary confinement."

Former federal inmate Arlene Gallone is representing the
prisoners.  Her suit seeks financial compensation for all mentally
ill prisoners exposed to the practice, along with all prisoners
who were segregated for 72 hours or more, over a particular three-
year period.

Ms. Gallone, who went to the Joliette Institution for Women after
being convicted in an armed robbery, says she spent two three-
month stretches in "the hole" as punishment for alleged
infractions.

Ms. Gallone says she is still negatively affected by memories from
her time in segregation.

"Imagine being locked up with no windows in your room, no nothing,
they feed you through a trap in the door," she said.

Ms. Gallone says she couldn't receive phone calls, was never told
in advance how long she would be separated from the other
prisoners and that the windows in her cell were blocked so she
couldn't see out.

"I don't know how I got through it, honestly," she said.  "There
was times when I just wanted to finish it.  I just wanted to get
it over with.  I was like, 'What is the point of me even being
alive?'"

Her lawyer, Clara Poissant-Lesperance, says that Correctional
Service Canada uses segregation as a management tool when it
should only be used in emergencies.

Clara Poissant-Lesperance called it "not human," and pointed to
research showing it can lead to lost appetites, anxiety and
distress.

Jason Godin, from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers,
says that solitary confinement doesn't exist in Canada and that
"regular programming" and psychological services are available to
"administratively-segregated" prisoners.

"Only difference is," according to Mr. Godin, "they're moved away
from other populations for their own safety or the safety of
others."

Mr. Godin warns against taking away a "tool" that he says is used
as a last resort and makes prisons safer.

"Our institutions are managing on any given day over 2,000 gang
members in our system," he said.  "So you try to get them all
getting along in one spot or another."

Mr. Godin added that the union has been unable to convince the
Correctional Service of Canada to provide "alternative tools"
which might reduce use of segregation, such as "a special handling
unit for high-risk women offenders who self-harm, who are
aggressive and who have mental health issues."

The issue has also made headlines in Ontario recently, after it
was revealed late last year that accused murderer Adam Capay had
spent four years stuck in a windowless cell.

In his 2014-15 annual report, former Office of the Correctional
Investigator Howard Sapers wrote that segregation "is so overused
that nearly half (48 per cent) of the current inmate population
has experienced segregation at least once during their present
sentence."

He pointed out that the UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights
Council on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment recommends solitary confinement in excess of 15 days
be prohibited.

Mr. Sapers noted that although there are mandated procedural
reviews of segregation that take place at the five-day, 30-day and
60-day marks, there are "no legal limits on how long an inmate can
be held in administrative segregation."

In his mandate letter to Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould,
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked her to implement changes to
the "use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with
mental illness" in prisons.

The Correctional Service of Canada said, in response to
Mr. Sapers' report, that it was working on a strategy "to reduce
the reliance on segregation by creating better options and finding
more innovative alternatives for safe reintegration."


CANADA: Former Crown Wards in Ontario File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reports that former Crown wards
in Ontario are asking the court to certify a $110-million-dollar
class action lawsuit, alleging the province failed to protect
their rights and help them pursue compensation for abuse they
suffered as children.

Lawyers for four representative clients made their arguments for
certification in Ontario Superior Court in Thunder Bay, Ont., on
Jan. 23.  Ontario was expected to respond on Jan. 24.

If the class action moves ahead, thousands of people from across
the province who experienced childhood abuse and became wards of
the Crown after 1966, could join the suit.

"This group is a vulnerable group and for decades they've lived
their lives without even being aware of the rights they have that
they can to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or
they can commence lawsuits," said lawyer Jonathan Ptak.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board helps victims of crime
receive funds for healing or therapy through a process that does
not require the victim to directly confront their abuser as they
would in a criminal or civil trial.

'I could have saved my sister'

Toni Grann wishes she was aware of the potential to seek
compensation for the physical abuse she suffered at the hands of
her mother's boyfriend when she was a toddler and the "horrific"
sexual abuse she suffered later in an adoptive home when she was
Crown ward.

"I was never taken to a doctor.  I was never able to talk to a
psychiatrist," Ms. Grann said outside the courthouse on Jan. 23.
"Even just taking me to a doctor, the abuse would have been
noticeable right from that point on and I could have saved my
sister the abuse [by the same man that later] happened to her."

Crown wards lawsuit against Ontario government takes next step
Ms. Grann said she eventually took the man who sexually assaulted
her to criminal court and he was convicted.  But she said no one
spoke to her about the possibility of suing him or going to the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Ontario could institute a province-wide policy requiring case
workers to explain options for pursuing compensation to Crown
wards as they turn 18 and provide them with their file, Mr. Ptak
told the court.

The absence of such a policy represents a "systemic failure at the
highest level," he said.

The Child and Family Services Act recognizes the Crown -- not
individual child welfare agencies -- as the legal guardian of
Crown wards, Mr. Ptak said.

'Responsibilities of a loving parent'

The law is "designed to charge [the Crown] with the same
responsibilities of a loving parent who would do everything in
their power to help their children," including helping them seek
justice for harms they've suffered, he said.

Ms. Grann said her focus is not on money, but on helping other
victims of abuse access the services they need to improve their
lives.

"The money will never make up for the damage that was done to us,"
Ms. Grann said.  "But the money will help the younger kids get the
help they need.

"For me, personally, I wouldn't have had to work two jobs to go to
university," she said.  "I could have sought help earlier in my
20s and not ended up with three or four ruined relationships."

In court documents, Ontario argues that the class action should
not be certified because it is too broad and too unwieldy for the
courts to deal with as a group because each individual would need
to show causation and damages in their specific circumstances.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Douglas" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Albert Douglas, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00043-HEH (E.D. Va., Jan. 18, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. District Judge Henry E. Hudson.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591 1067
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930 3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com


CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Miller Sues Over United Bankshares Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cardinal Financial Corp., Bernard
H.Clineburg, Buddy G. Beck, Michael A. Farcia, William E.
Peterson, Steven M. Wiltse, William J. Nassetta, Sidney O.
Dewberry, William G. Buck, J. Hamilton Lambert, Alice M. Starr,
Barbara B. Lang and United Bankshares, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00044-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va., January 11, 2017), alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The lawsuit challenges the proposed merger of Cardinal with United
Bankshares, Inc., which Plaintiffs describe as false and
misleading to the public.

If consummated, Cardinal stockholders will receive 0.71 shares of
United stock for each share of Cardinal stock that they own.  The
Proposed Transaction was valued at approximately $912 million at
the time of the announcement.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants' Registration
Statement, as filed on December 9, 2016, fails to disclose that
United intends to issue approximately 4,330,000 shares of common
stock in lieu of its disclosed offering of preferred stock.  Given
the exchange ratio, Cardinal stockholders will receive
approximately 23 million shares of United common stock.  These
additional 4,330,000 shares of United common stock, approximately
18% of the shares to be issued to Cardinal stockholders, will
dilute the value of United common stock to an unforeseeable
degree.

Cardinal Financial Corporation operates as a multi-bank holding
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290
   Fax: (202) 333-2121
   Email: etripodi@zlk.com


CARIO INC: Faces "Condo" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
Maria Beatriz Condo, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cario, Inc. d/b/a Mama's Empanadas,
Casio, Inc. d/b/a Mama's Empanadas, Laviana, Inc. d/b/a Mama's
Empanadas and Javier Garcia, as individual, Defendants, Case No.
CV 17-00206 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), seeks payment of
overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Romas Avshalumov,Esq.
   HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
   69-12 Austin Street
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: 718-263-9591
   Fax: 718-263-9598


CERTO'S PORK STORE: Munguia Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Munguia, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Certo's Pork Store Inc. d/b/a Certo's Gourment and
Rachel Certo, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00190 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for payment of
overtime for work performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Anne Seelig, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-465-1188
   Fax: 212-465-1181


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit Over 401(k) Plan Offered to Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Charles Schwab Corporation ("Schwab") and certain of its
subsidiaries on behalf of the participants in the 401(k) plan
Schwab offered to its employees.

The complaint claims that Schwab included among the plan's
investment options certain mutual funds and collective trusts that
were affiliated with Schwab, which allowed Schwab and its
subsidiaries to collect unreasonable and excessive fees from its
employees' retirement savings. The complaint further alleges that
Schwab imposed improper charges through a self-directed brokerage
program, and used for its own purposes unallocated cash belonging
to the 401(k) plan.

The complaint alleges that Schwab's conduct violated the fiduciary
duties and prohibited transaction rules imposed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Berger & Montague, P.C., a firm based in Philadelphia, PA,
represents the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The firm represents
plaintiffs in complex and class action litigation and is
consistently ranked as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the
United States by many publications.  Berger & Montague, P.C. has
extensive experience representing retirement plan participants,
investors, and consumers in class action litigation, and the firm
has played lead roles in major cases for over 40 years resulting
in recoveries of many billions of dollars for their clients and
the classes they represent.  Further information about Berger &
Montague, P.C. can be found at www.bergermontague.com.

In addition to Berger & Montague LLP, the plaintiff is represented
by Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, which
represents retirement plan participants, workers and consumers in
class action litigation matters around the country.  For 24 years,
the firm's attorneys have handled matters involving ERISA
benefits, workplace benefits, disability rights, employment
discrimination issues and consumer rights.  Schneider Wallace has
offices in Emeryville, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; and
Houston, Texas. On the Web:  http://www.schneiderwallace.com

Participants in the Schwab 401(k) Plan may be members of the class
and can obtain more information by calling 215.875.3000.
Participants can also contact Todd Collins at 215.875.3040 or
tcollins@bm.net or Ellen Noteware at 215.875.3051 or
enoteware@bm.net

Please Contact:

         Todd Collins
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: 215.875.3040
         E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
         Web: www.bergermontague.com

         Ellen Noteware
         Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: 215.875.3051
         E-mail: enoteware@bm.net
         Web: www.bergermontague.com


CL IRRIGATION: "Carrasco" Suit Claims Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Arnulfo Carrasco, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CL Irrigation & Landscaping,
Inc. and Valente Ortiz, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00147, (N.D.
Ill., January 9, 2017), seeks unpaid compensation and overtime,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements of this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Carrasco worked as a landscaper and delivery person for the
Defendant's landscaping business.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Kunze, Esq.
      David J. Fish, Esq.
      Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM
      200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590


COMCAST CORP: Panarielo Sues Over  Service Protection Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Panarielo, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation, a foreign
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60089-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
January 13, 2017), seeks damages against the Defendant for unfair
and deceptive activities under Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff sues Comcast for fraud, deception, false promises,
misrepresentation and the knowing concealment, suppression or
admission of material facts in its sale and marketing and/or
advertisement of its Service Protection Plan in violation of
Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Angelo Marino, Esq.
   William H. Brennan, III, Esq.
   Angelo Marino, Jr., P.A.
   645 S.E. 5th Terrace
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 765-0537
   Fax: (954) 765-0545
   Email: amjrpamail@aol.com
          amjrpamail@hotmail.com


CONCEPT AUTO: Faces "Portuondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teudy Portuondo and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Concept Auto, Inc., Mike Kvachuk and Marat Kvachuk, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20137-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 11, 2017), seeks
wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an office cleaner, car cleaner,
and demolition worker from on or about August 31, 2016 through on
or about December 28, 2016.

Concept Auto, Inc., doing business as Payless Car Sales, doing
business as Credit Master, is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CROSSROADS SUPER BUFFET: "Calle" Seeks Payment of Wages & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bolivar Ramiro Buele Calle, Plaintiff, individually an on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Crossroads Super Buffet Inc.
(d/b/a Super Buffet) and Hui Yang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00205-JPO (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2017), seeks wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek in
violation of Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Buele was employed as a dishwasher, food preparer, cook,
porter and handyman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Sanders" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Danyielle Sanders, Plaintiff, individually and on behal of all
others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00055-WBS-CKD
(E.D.Cal., January 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants negligently, knowingly
and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of TCPA, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a retail seller of pharmaceutical
and other products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAKOTA TRAVEL: Breach of Contract, Deductions Hit in "Diaz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Diaz, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dakota Travel Nurse, Inc. and
Beverly Unrath, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00012, (D.N.D.,
January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
compensatory and liquidated damages with interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and disbursements of this action
resulting from breach of contract, and violation of North Dakota
Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dakota Travel Nurse operates 99 health care facilities all over
North and South Dakota and Montana where Plaintiff worked as a
certified nursing assistant. Diaz is from Ohio and moved to North
Dakota for work. She claims her pay was deducted mandatory board
and lodging expenses more than maximum of $18 set by North Dakota
Law, which rendered her agreed contract rate substantially lower.
She also claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Superior Building
      815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (440) 498-9100
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

             - and -

      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      MCDERMOTT LAW LLC
      11925 Pearl Road, Suite 310
      Strongsville, OH 44136
      Tel: (216) 367-9181
      Fax: (440) 846-1625
      Email: Kevin@mcdermottattorney.com


DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL: Sued Over Collection Calls by "Bell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Bell, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Department Stores National Bank,
a South Dakota Entity, FDS Bank, an Ohio Corporation, Macy's
Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00102,
(N.D. Cal., January 9, 2017), seeks statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, treble damages and statutory damages under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants repeatedly made unsolicited calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using an automated telephone dialing system or
pre-recorded voice for the purpose of collecting a debt allegedly
owed to Defendants by another individual. Defendants repeatedly
called Plaintiff, even after Plaintiff informed Defendants that
they had the wrong number.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Fax: (310) 507-7906
      Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
             david@kristensenlaw.com


DISH NETWORK: Hit With $20.5MM Verdict in Telemarketing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
After a five-day trial, a Greensboro, North Carolina jury handed
down a $20.5 million verdict in an unprecedented class action
trial against Dish Network.  The class, led by class
representative Dr. Thomas Krakauer of Bahama, North Carolina,
alleged Dish was liable for more than 51,000 telemarketing calls
placed by a defunct DISH dealer to persons whose telephone numbers
were on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The jury found DISH liable for all calls, and awarded $400 per
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"This case has always been about enforcing the Do Not Call law and
protecting people from nuisance telemarketing calls," said Dr.
Krakauer. "I am thrilled with the jury's verdict, and thrilled we
were able to win this enforcement action."

The trial team was led by Brian A. Glasser (Washington, D.C.) and
John W. Barrett (Charleston, West Virginia) of Bailey & Glasser,
LLP, a 57-lawyer firm headquartered in Charleston, WV. Other key
trial team members were Matthew McCue of Massachusetts, Matthew
Norris of Raleigh, N.C., and Ryan Donovan of Bailey & Glasser.
Completing the team were Edward A. Broderick and Anthony Paronich
of Broderick & Paronich in Boston, and John Roddy of Bailey &
Glasser's Boston office.

"We won this case through the testimony of DISH witnesses
themselves," Glasser said. Glasser argued in court that DISH's
order entry retailer program was a corporate shell game, developed
so DISH could have all the benefits of illegal telemarketing - the
customers - but shoulder none of the responsibility for violating
the law.

"We believe this is the first and only jury trial for a certified
class of consumers alleging Do Not Call violations," said Barrett.
"This was a strength-in-numbers case, one we could only bring as a
class action, where we tried 51,000 claims in a single, five-day
trial. We're particularly pleased with the message this verdict
sends about the importance of the Do Not Call laws, the most
popular consumer protection law in U.S. history."

More than 220 million Americans have opted out of receiving home
telemarketing calls by registering their telephone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry. The registry was established
through the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA,
which was enacted in 1991 and regulates live, prerecorded and
"robocall" telemarketing.

The case was presided over by U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles
of the Middle District of North Carolina.

Peter Bicks, Elyse Echtmann, and John Ewald of Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe in New York represented DISH.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: MPD Sued for Unconstitutional Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein at Politico reports a federal-class action lawsuit
filed on January 20 accuses police of using unconstitutional
tactics against demonstrators who descended on downtown Washington
to protest the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

The suit, filed on behalf of Colorado defense attorney Benjamin
Carraway, claims that officers of the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) and the U.S. Park Police confined peaceful
protesters and sprayed them with chemicals.

"Around the time of Trump's swearing in, John Doe MPD Officers and
John Doe Park Police officers surrounded individuals who were at
or near 12th & L St., NW ... Without warning and without any
dispersal order, the police officers kettled all of the
plaintiffs," the complaint says. "Defendants included in the
kettle not only protesters who had engaged in no criminal conduct,
but also members of the media, attorneys, legal observers, and
medics . . . .  Defendants proceeded to indiscriminately and
repeatedly deploy chemical irritants, attack the individuals with
batons, and throw flash-bang grenades at the kettled individuals."

"The use of chemical irritants against Plaintiffs, the use of the
batons against Plaintiffs, and the deployment of flash-bang
grenades under the circumstances constituted unreasonable and
excessive force," Washington attorney Jeffrey Light argued in the
complaint.

Representatives of the D.C. police and the Park Police did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

D.C. police officials' handling of a 2002 protest against an
International Monetary Fund meeting led to at least three lawsuits
that cost the city more than $12 million to settle. The
allegations were similar: that protesters were confined
unnecessarily or arrested without cause.


DOLLAR GENERAL: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Dollar General Corporation (NYSE:DG) between March
10, 2016 and November 30, 2016. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for
the Middle District of Tennessee. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/dollar-general-corporation

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 during the Class Period the Company
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the announced limitations on SNAP benefits would have a
material impact on its financial performance since 56% of Dollar
General's stores are located in states that re-implemented time
limitations on SNAP benefits in 2016, and therefore the impact of
SNAP reductions would be disproportionate to the percentage of the
Company's overall sales comprised of SNAP payments. These
statements were significant to shareholders because they were made
in response to concerns by analysts that SNAP benefits would be
reduced in several states -- which could impact Dollar General's
sales to the extent its business operations were exposed to SNAP
changes.

If you suffered a loss in Dollar General you have until March 20,
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 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. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement Check Distribution to Begin
---------------------------------------------------
Erin Caproni at Cincinnati Business Courier reports thousands of
Duke Energy customers in Greater Cincinnati will be receiving a
check from the company soon.

The final approval to allow distribution of settlement checks in
the case against Duke Energy has been given by Chief Judge Edmund
Sargus Jr., which means more than 200,000 checks will be sent in
the coming weeks.

Duke (NYSE: DUK), 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.

Residential claimants who filed in the class-action suit will
receive approximately $140, while non-residential claimants could
receive more based on their usage during the time period included
in the lawsuit.

"We are incredibly pleased with the success of the settlement,"
Bill Markovits, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a founding
partner of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, said in a statement. "Our
firm has never seen a class action with such high participation
coupled with significant compensation. We're sure the over 200,000
Duke Energy customers with approved claims will also be very
pleased."

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.
It could take about three weeks for all of the checks to be
distributed.


ELAN CORP: April 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Court Order, A.B. Data, Ltd., as Claims Administrator,
is issuing the following legal notice:

LEGAL NOTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DAVID E. KAPLAN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,
No. 12 Civ. 9350 (JGK) (KNF)


                            - against -

S.A.C. CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P., et al.,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (i) PROPOSED $135,000,000 CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION; (ii) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (iii) APPLICATIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES,
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND PLAINTIFF COMPENSATORY AWARDS

TO:
All persons who (a) sold Elan Corporation, plc ("Elan") ADRs
during the period August 23, 2006 through and including June 17,
2008 at 2:00 am EDT, or (b) purchased Elan ADRs, purchased call
options thereon, or sold put options thereon, during the period
July 21, 2008 through and including July 29, 2008 at 4:00 pm EDT
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 27,
2017 at 4:30 p.m., before the Honorable John G. Koeltl at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 12B, New York, New York 10007, to determine
whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned Action for $135,000,000 in cash should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the final
judgment and orders of dismissal with prejudice as provided under
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement should be entered,
dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the
release by Class Members of claims, as set forth in the settlement
agreement, should be authorized; (4) Plaintiffs' Counsel should be
awarded attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; (5) the
request of the plaintiffs appointed on behalf of the Classes for
reimbursement of their costs and expenses (including lost wages)
should be approved; and (6) the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved.

Please note that the date, time and location of the Settlement
hearing are subject to change without further notice.  If you plan
to attend the hearing, you should check the docket or contact
Class Counsel (identified below) to be sure that no change to the
date, time, or location of the hearing has been made.

IF YOU (1) SOLD ELAN ADRs DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 23, 2006
THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 17, 2008 AT 2:00 AM EDT OR (2)
PURCHASED ELAN ADRs, PURCHASED ELAN CALL OPTIONS, OR SOLD ELAN PUT
OPTIONS DURING THE PERIOD JULY 21, 2008 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY
29, 2008 AT 4:00 PM EDT, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT.

To share in the Settlement funds, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked, received or filed online no later than May 29, 2017.
Unless the deadline is extended, your failure to submit your Claim
Form by that date will preclude you from receiving any payment
from the Settlement.  If you are a Class Member and do not request
exclusion from the Classes or have not already done so, you will
be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in
the Action, whether or not you submit a Claim Form.

If you have not received a copy of the Settlement Notice, which
more completely describes the Settlement and your rights
(including your right to request exclusion from the Classes and
your right to object to the Settlement), you may obtain it and a
Claim Form, as well as a copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, online at www.sac-elan.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator.  Inquiries about filing a Claim Form should be
directed to the Claims Administrator, and inquiries about the case
may be made to Class Counsel.  The Claims Administrator and Class
Counsel may be contacted as follows:

The Claims Administrator:

         Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P.
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173024
         Milwaukee, WI  53217
         Telephone: (800) 332-7417
         Email: info@sac-elan.com

Class Counsel:

         Ethan Wohl, Krista Rosen and Sara Wigmore, Esqs.
         Wohl & Fruchter LLP
         570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor
         New York, NY  10022
         Telephone: (212) 758-4000
         Email: kaplan-v-sac@wohlfruchter.com

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of Court.

Dated: January 23, 2017
By Order of the Court

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


FIAT CHRYSLER: Fasching Alleges False Advertising of EcoDiesel(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATHUE FASCHING, THOMAS MCGANN, JR., JOSEPH NEUPERT, BRYAN
MUCKENFUSS, SATYANAM SINGH, JOHN RADZIEWICZ, and BINH QUOC TRAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC; and FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00231 (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2017),
alleges that Fiat Chrysler promoted its EcoDiesel(R) branded
diesel-powered light trucks and SUVs as offering efficient fuel
economy, desirable performance, and clean, environmentally
friendly emissions when in reality, these vehicles, like the well-
known Volkswagen diesel vehicles, were equipped with a software
algorithm -- a "defeat device" -- designed to cheat federal and
state emission testing for oxides of nitrogen, and thereby
deceiving the Environmental Protection Agency.

Holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch
corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom, was formed
upon the acquisition of American automaker Chrysler by Fiat
through its Italian corporate predecessor, Fiat S.p.A.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
     Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 463-3900
     Fax: (510) 463-3901
     E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
             lpetak@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
             rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
     Robyn R. English, Esq.
     BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP
     1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 445-4003
     Fax: (415) 445-4020
     E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
             renglish@bfalaw.com

        - and -

     Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: (304) 345-6555
     Fax: (304) 342-1110
     E-mail: Bbailey@baileyglasser.com

        - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 254-8801
     Fax: (615) 250-3937
     E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
             joeyl@bsjfirm.com

        - and -

     Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
     Ann Ritter, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE, LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 216-9000
     Fax: (843) 216-9450
     E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
             aritter@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Phone: (415) 956-1000
     Fax: (415) 956-1008
     E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

        - and -

     David S. Stellings, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Fax: (212) 355-9592
     E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Koskie Minsky Files Emissions Class Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP have
commenced a class proceeding against Fiat Chrysler NV and other
defendants, alleging that certain Jeep Cherokee and Dodge RAM 1500
trucks are non-compliant with Canadian emissions laws. The class
action is brought on behalf of Damen MacGillivray, an owner of a
2016 Dodge RAM 1500, and all other Canadian owners and lessees of
2014-2016 Jeep and Dodge Ram 150 trucks containing "EcoDiesel"
engines.

In the wake of the Volkswagen 'Dieselgate' scandal, various
agencies placed increased scrutiny on the emissions of diesel
Jeeps and Dodge RAM 1500 vehicles. As a result of those
investigations, it has been reported that such vehicles emit
significantly higher levels of pollutants than is permissible
under North American law.

Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky, co-lead counsel in the Volkswagen
emissions class action, has stated that "Major automakers continue
to mislead the public with respect to emissions. The environmental
impacts of 'dirty diesels' cannot continue."

Peter Griffin of Lenczner Slaght has stated "Where Canadian
consumers and their environment are affected by conduct of this
type, class proceedings are the ideal means of modifying such
behaviour."


FITNESS INT'L: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Withdrawals
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Garrido, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fitness
International, LLC, Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC, LAF Canada
Company and does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00054 (C.D.
Cal., January 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Violation of
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants never provided Plaintiff
with a written or electronic document authorizing any of the
recurring electronic withdrawals and Plaintiff never signed any
such authorization.

Defendants own and operate fitness and training facilities open to
the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
   LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
   21550 0xnard St., Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: 877-206-4741
   Fax: 866-633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
          abacon@toddflaw.com


FMS INC: Faces "Callan" Suit in Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Inc. The case is
titled as Annamaria Callan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMS Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00287 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2017).

FMS operates as a receivables management company. The company
provides first and third party collections, recovery, and
receivables management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FREEDOM TRAILERS: Faces "Wardlaw" Suit in S.D. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Trailers,
LLC. The case is entitled as Carlos Wardlaw and Levertis Vickers,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Freedom Trailers, LLC, and Mark Baxley, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00010-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga., Jan. 18,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood.

Freedom Trailers sells enclosed cargo trailers to dealers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John F. Beasley, Jr.
          J.F. BEASLEY, LLC
          P.O. Box 309
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 769 4410
          Facsimile: (706) 769 4471
          E-mail: jfbeasley@jfbeasleylaw.com


FULKRUM TECHNICAL: Faces "Walock" Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrit Walock, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fulkrum Technical Resources, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-00099 (D. Minn., January 10, 2017), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay wages and
overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Fulkrum Technical Resources, Ltd. Is a servicing
corporation providing support to oil and gas companies throughout
the United States, including in this District and the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5933
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: emdrake@bm.net

        - and -

   Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
   Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
   Camille Fundora, Esq.
   BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: scarson@bm.net
          sschalman-bergen@bm.net
          cfundora@bm.net


GB PREMIUM OCTG: Faces "Wishard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
James Wishard, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GB Premium OCTG Services LLC f/k/a GB
Consultants International, (Gulf Coast), LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00064 (S.D. Tex., January 10, 2017), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Clif Alexander, Esq.
   Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
   Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
   ANDERSON2X, PLLC
   819 N. Upper Broaway
   Corpus Christi, TX 78401
   Tel: (361) 452-1279
   Fax: (361) 452-1284
   Email: clif@a2law.com
          austin@a2xlaw.com
          lauren@a2xlaw.com


GENERAL CABLE: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against General Cable Corporation on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between February 23, 2012 and February 10,
2016, inclusive.

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased General Cable
securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 6,
2017, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information, or to
learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/general-cable-corporation#join.

General Cable Corporation designs, develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire
and cable products for the energy, industrial, construction, and
specialty and communications markets worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period General Cable
and certain of its executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and/or 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. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, General Cable's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On September 22, 2014, General Cable 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, General Cable 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."

General Cable shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela,
Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or at
info@ktmc.com.

General Cable shareholders may, no later than March 6, 2017,
petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.


GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Suit Over Cal. Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Celena King, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Great American Chicken Corp, Inc. d/b/a
Kentucky Fried Chicken, a California Corporation and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC646368 (Super. Cal.,
January 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants' failure to provide meal
periods, pay minimum wages, overtime wages and unfair and unlawful
business practices.

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Launa Adolph, Esq.
     Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Tel: (310) 531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901


HAN Y. INC: Lin Alleges Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------
Gan Di Lin, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
employees similarly situated v. Han Y. Inc., d/b/a Umi Sushi and
Tony H., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00175 (E.D.N.Y., January 12,
2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jian Hang, Esq.
   Hang & Associates, PLLC
   136-18 39th Ave Ste 1003
   Flushing, NY 11354
   Tel: 718-353-8588
   Fax: 718-353-6288
   Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


HOFFMAN LAROCHE: NJ High Court Reinstates $25MM Accutane Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New Jersey's top court has
reinstated a $25 million jury award for an Alabama man who became
seriously ill after taking an acne drug.

Andrew McCarrell sued pharmaceuticals company Hoffman LaRoche in
2003, claiming Accutane caused medical problems that led to
doctors removing his colon and rectum.

Mr. McCarrell claimed the drug's label didn't include proper
warnings about potential health risks and won the damages in 2010.
An appellate court later tossed out the verdict because Mr.
McCarrell had sued too late under Alabama law.

The New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the appellate panel's
ruling on Jan. 24.  The justices found Mr. McCarrell could rely on
New Jersey law instead of Alabama law.

The New Jersey court sent the case back to the appellate court to
consider other arguments the company raised.

The company says it's "disappointed" by the ruling.


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports last May, when the U.S. Supreme
Court issued its ruling on constitutional standing and statutory
violations in Spokeo v. Robins, she predicted both sides of the
class action bar would seize upon language in the confusing and
arguably self-contradictory opinion. That quickly turned out to be
true. What I didn't expect, however, was a fast-emerging consensus
from the federal circuits on Spokeo's impact.

On January 20, the 3rd U.S. Circuit became the latest appellate
court to find that Spokeo does not preclude class actions in which
plaintiffs allege their only injury is intangible. A three-judge
3rd Circuit panel ruled that customers of Horizon Healthcare have
constitutional standing to proceed with a class action claiming
the insurer left their personal information exposed in the theft
of two laptops containing customer data. The panel -- Judges Kent
Jordan, Thomas Vanaskie and Patty Shwartz -- reinstated the class
action, which had been dismissed on standing grounds by U.S.
District Judge Claire Cecchi of Newark, New Jersey.

As Judge Jordan wrote in the court's opinion, the 3rd Circuit's
Spokeo analysis aligns with the 6th Circuit's post-Spokeo decision
in Galaria v. Nationwide, which, in turn, cited pre-Spokeo
decisions in which the 7th Circuit found the mere threat of
identity threat to be sufficient to establish standing in a data
breach class action. The 3rd Circuit also noted its agreement with
the 11th Circuit's post-Spokeo ruling in Church v. Accretive
Health, which involved debt collection rather than privacy claims,
but similarly held a concrete injury need not be tangible.

The outlier among the federal circuits, at least for the moment,
is the 8th Circuit, which ruled last September in Braitberg v.
Charter Communications that a cable customer alleging the unlawful
retention of his personal data did not meet Spokeo's test for
constitutional standing. Braitberg, according to the 8th Circuit,
failed to identify a "material risk of harm" from the cable
company's alleged violation of the requirement that it destroy its
records on him.

In January 20's opinion, the 3rd Circuit explicitly rejected the
8th Circuit's reasoning. "Although it is possible to read the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo as creating a requirement that
a plaintiff show a statutory violation has caused a 'material risk
of harm' before he can bring suit," the opinion said, "we do not
believe that the court so intended to change the traditional
standard for the establishment of standing." (In a footnote, the
3rd Circuit cited the Braitberg opinion as the most notable
example of what it considers over-reading of Spokeo's holding.)

The Horizon decision isn't the 3rd Circuit's first utterance on
Spokeo. Last June, soon after the Supreme Court's decision, a
different 3rd Circuit panel partly revived a class action accusing
Google and Viacom of illegally collecting children's Internet
data. That panel, quoting from the justices' Spokeo opinion, said
the plaintiffs met the Supreme Court's test because they had
suffered "a clear de facto injury, i.e., the unlawful disclosure
of legally protected information." In Friday's Horizon ruling,
which delves more deeply into Spokeo analysis, the 3rd Circuit
said the data breach plaintiffs had "at least as strong" a basis
as those in the previous case.


ILLUMINA INC: "McLeod" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
James McLeod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Illumina, Inc., Francis A. Desouza and
Marc A. Stapley, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00053, (S.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Illumina provides sequencing and array-based solutions for genetic
analysis. The Company claims that its customers include genomic
research centers, academic institutions, government laboratories,
hospitals, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, agrigenomics, commercial
molecular diagnostic laboratories and consumer genomics companies.

Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a
large decline in high throughput sequencing instrument sales that
was negatively impacting the Company's revenue and the Company
lacked visibility into trends that could have a substantial impact
on the Company's financial results. On this news, Illumina's stock
price fell $45.86 per share, or 24.8%, to close at $138.99 per
share on October 11, 2016.

Plaintiff purchased Illumina securities and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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

              - and -

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


J. C. PENNEY: Objection to Report and Recommendation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that Defendants'
objections to the report and recommendation in the Marcus
consolidated purported class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought
on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the
period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused our common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The consolidated
complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and
other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint which was
denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants filed an
answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12, 2015.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 25,
2016, and defendants submitted a response to the motion on April
15, 2016. On August 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation that the motion for class certification be
granted. Defendants have filed objections to the report and
recommendation.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in
the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and seeks similar relief. On
June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

The Company said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and
we intend to vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that
the final resolution of these actions will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."


J. C. PENNEY: ERISA Class Action Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the settlement
in the ERISA Class Action Litigation remains pending.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1,
2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and
others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during
this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false
and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to
court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available $4.5
million to settle class members' claims.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Settlement of Calif. and Illinois Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the settlement
of the employment class action in California and Illinois actions
remains pending.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in
both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify
these actions on behalf of all employees in California and
Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17,
2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Pursuant to a motion by the Company, the California
court decertified the class on December 9, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion for
summary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the California plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. On May 4, 2016, the California court
entered judgment for JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois
court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class
certification pending the filing of an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit
on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered. On July 2, 2015,
the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification, which the Illinois court granted on March 8, 2016.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to court
approval, to resolve the California and Illinois actions for a
combined total of $6.75 million.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these
actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


JSC INC: "Boyce" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA BOYCE, SARAH KING, and PEYTON MUSGRAVE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JSC, INC. d/b/a
BLACKWOOD'S GYROS & GRILL; BLACKWOOD GRILL, INC.; and JAMES
BLACKWOOD, Case No. 4:17-cv-00031-JLH (E.D. Ark., January 17,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and all other relief allowed by law.

Blackwood's Gyros & Grill is a restaurant located in Conway,
Arkansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John T. Holleman, Esq.
     Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
     HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A
     Jerry D. Garner, Esq.
     1008 West Second Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: 501.975.5040
     Fax: 501.975.5041
     E-mail: jholleman@johnhlleman.net
             tim@johnholleman.net
             jerry@johnholleman.net


JCS MILITARY SUPPORT: "Brandley" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Brandley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JCS Military Support Services, Inc., and
Magellan Health, Inc, Defendants., Case No. 2:17-cv-00076-MAK,
(E.D. Pa., January 9, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Magellan contracts with the United States Department of Defense to
provide healthcare services at and around US military bases
through JCS, providing non-medical behavioral counselling services
to active duty service men. Brandley worked as a Military Family
Life Counsellor. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
      MORGAN & PAUL, PLLC
      First and Market Building
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 259-8375
      Fax: (888) 822-9421
      Email: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com

             - and -

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
      Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-3605
      Fax: (214) 520-1181
      Email: avaught@baronbudd.com
             marbuckl@baronbudd.com
             ffozouni@baronbudd.com


JOHN BATISTA: "Day" Files Labor Suit, Claims Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Day, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. John Batista, M.D., P.A., and John Batista, M.D.,
individually, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00058, (M.D. Fla.,
January 9, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant for Dr. Batista from
June 2015 through August 3, 2016, answering phones, scheduling,
performing EKGs and injections. He seeks overtime pay for hours
rendered in excess of forty per week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


JP MAIN: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Martinez Feliciano, Plaintiff, individually an on behalf
of others similarly situated v. JP Main Street Corp. (d/b/a
Hendriks), J.P. 538 Third Corp. (d/b/a Hudson Place), Jackson Peng
and Stuart Liu, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00212 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 11, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants operated restaurants located at 557 Third Avenue, New
York, NY 10061 and 538 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


KALESMENO CORP: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambrosio Rojas, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Kalesmeno Corp. d/b/a The
Flame Diner, Heledona, Inc. d/b/a Olympic Flame Diner, P.T.M. 44
Rest. Corp., d/b/a The Red Flame, CVK Restaurant Corp. d/b/a
Murray Hill Diner, Vasilios Katsanos, John Tsinias, Elias Tsinias
and Konstantinos Katsanos, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-JGK
(S.D.NY, January 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants are engaged in restaurant industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Anne Seelig, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group,PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-465-1188
   Fax: 212-465-1181


KEMPHARM INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm, Robbins Arroyo LLP, announces that a
class action complaint was filed against KemPharm, Inc. in the
Iowa District Court for Johnson County. The complaint is brought
in connection with the company's April 16, 2015 Initial Public
Offering for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by
KemPharm's officers and directors. KemPharm, a clinical-stage
specialty pharmaceutical company, discovers and develops new
proprietary prodrugs in the United States. KemPharm's most
advanced drug candidate, known as Apadaz, is designed to treat
acute to moderately severe pain.

According to the complaint, in December 2015, KemPharm submitted a
New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
Apadaz. Apadaz was intended to be labeled as an "abuse-deterrent"
opioid product that offers equivalent efficacy to the existing
standard-of-care products, but with reduced addictive effect. Such
labeling would give the drug a competitive advantage in the market
for painkillers. On April 16, 2015, KemPharm held its IPO, selling
5,090,909 common shares at $11.00 per share, generating net
proceeds of $52,079,999. The complaint alleges that KemPharm
officials omitted material facts from the registration statement
and incorporated offering materials that the company filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the IPO.
In particular, KemPharm did not disclose that the company
constructed a deficient study regarding Apadaz's abuse-deterrent
properties, and, as such, Apadaz would not be labeled as an
"abuse-deterrent" product by the FDA.

On May 5, 2016, KemPharm announced that the Anesthetic and
Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and
Risk Management Advisory Committee of the FDA had reviewed and
voted on Apadaz, with a vote of 18 to 2 against inclusion of
abuse-deterrent labeling for the product. James Tolliver,
pharmacologist for the controlled substance staff within the
Office of the Center Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research at the FDA, stated that there was an issue with the study
design of Apadaz that made it difficult to use in assessing the
abuse-deterrent effect of the drug. On this news, the company's
stock price fell 56% to close at $6.91 per share on May 6, 2016.

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


KPMG LLP: Overtime Pay Sought in "Meadows" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Meadows, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. KPMG LLP, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00066, (S.D. Tex.,
January 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, all costs of the action and post-judgment interest under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

KPMG LLP, is an accounting firm organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.

Ms. Meadows worked for KPMG as a Research Manager from March 16,
2016 to September 30, 2016. She claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


LANDS' END: Gorss Motels Files TCPA Class Action Over Junk Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross D. Andre, Esq. -- ross.andre@troutmansanders.com -- and David
N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
Lands' End, a Wisconsin-based clothing retailer, was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed January 4 under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in federal court in Connecticut.
The TCPA includes, as a result of the Junk Fax Protection Act of
2005, prohibitions on sending unsolicited fax advertisements
without a required opt-out notice containing various discrete
items of information.  The plaintiff in the case, Gorss Motels
Inc., alleges it received an unsolicited fax advertisement from
Lands' End that did not include the required opt-out language.

Gorss Motels seeks to represent both itself and a class consisting
of any persons who received faxes from Lands' End lacking an opt-
out notice.  Although the TCPA's language requires an opt-out only
on unsolicited fax advertisements, Gorss Motels proposes to
represent a class that includes recipients of both unsolicited and
solicited faxes, as long as those faxes also lacked an appropriate
opt-out notice.  That theory of liability is based on a 2014 FCC
regulation interpreting the TCPA's opt-out requirement to apply to
any fax advertisement, whether unsolicited or not (that
interpretation is currently being challenged before the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals).

The case presents an interesting factual situation because the fax
Gorss Motels received (and attached to the Complaint) was
addressed to owners and employees of Wyndham Worldwide Corp. but
was nonetheless allegedly received by Gorss Motels.  Gorss Motels
is proceeding on the theory that the TCPA attaches liability to
whatever company's goods or services are advertised, meaning that
even if Lands' End did not send the fax (or sent it to Gorss
Motels inadvertently), under Gorss Motels' theory of the case,
Lands' End remains liable.

At the same time it filed its Complaint, Gorss Motels also filed a
motion for class certification and for a temporary stay of further
proceedings on that motion.  The motion argues that it is a
necessary placeholder to prevent any efforts to moot the class
claims by devising a work-around to the Supreme Court's holding in
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016).
In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment can moot a class claim.
Motions like Gorss Motels' were common prior to Campbell-Ewald
given the threat that some courts may treat an unaccepted offer of
judgment as a basis to moot the individual claim, but Gorss Motels
has extended the tactic post-Campbell-Ewald to try to ensure its
class claims are protected from any efforts to moot its individual
claim.


LANDTEK GROUP: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Meyer and Joseph Peralta, Plaintiffs, individually an
on behalf of all person similarly situated v. The Landtek Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00161 (E.D.N.Y., January 11,
2017), seeks wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standard Act and
New York Labor Law.

Defendant Landtek Group, Inc. is engaged in construction works.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Russell D. Paul, Esq.
   Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
   Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
   Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
   Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
   BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: rpaul@bm.net
          scarson@bm.net
          sschalman-bergen@bm.net
          elechzin@bm.net
          apiazza@bm.net


LCOR INCORPORATED: "Marshall" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Ian Marshall and Reinaldo Soto, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LCOR Incorporated,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00132, (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages from failure to pay overtime
compensation, liquidated and/or punitive damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interests, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
disbursements of this action pursuant to New York Labor Laws and
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as concierge/doormen and porters
in two of their luxury residential buildings located at 34 Berry
Street and 250 North 10th Street in the Williamsburg neighborhood
of Brooklyn. LCOR Incorporated is a Pennsylvania company with its
principal place of business at 850 Casset Road, Suite 300, Berwyn,
PA 19312.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


LEVEL 3: Faces "Amedee" Lawsuit Over Sale to CenturyLink
--------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AMEDEE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JEFF K.
STOREY, JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., KEVIN P. CHILTON, STEVEN T. CLONTZ,
IRENE M. ESTEVES, T. MICHAEL GLENN, SPENCER B. HAYS, MICHAEL J.
MAHONEY, KEVIN W. MOONEY, PETER SEAH LIM HUAT, and PETER VAN
OPPEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00155 (D. Col., January 17,
2017), is a securities suit that seeks to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be
acquired by CenturyLink, Inc.  The case alleges that the Board of
the Company failed to secure the best value reasonably available
for the Company's stockholders by failing to pursue a pre-signing
market check.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. describes itself as a multinational
telecommunications and internet service provider that operates a
Tier 1 network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


LIMITED STORES: O'Rourke Files Adversary Suit on Behalf of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin O'Rourke, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Limited Stores, LLC, Case No. 17-50005-KJC (Bankr.
Del., January 17, 2017), is an adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy case of the Defendant.

The nature of suit is stated as recovery of money/property.

Plaintiff Kaitlin O'Rourke, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
          E-mail: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com

               - and -

          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          210 S. Washington Avenue
          Post Office Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com
                  molsen@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Parshall Challenges HIG Capital Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Rory J.
Cowan, Edward A. Blechschmidt, Michael Dallas, Guy L. De Chazal,
Susan Kantor, Paul A. Kavanagh, Jack Noonan, James A. Quella,
Claude P. Sheer, H.I.G. Capital, LLC, LBT Acquistion, Inc. and LBT
Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-0022 (Del. Ch.,
January 13, 2017) is brought on behalf of all public stockholders
of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. against the Company's Board of
Directors, among others, to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on December 12, 2016, pursuant to which Lionbridge will
be acquired by H.I.G. Capital, LLC.

The complaint says that due to Defendants' failure to provide full
and fair disclosure, Plaintiff and Class will be stripped of their
ability to make an informed decision with respect to the Proposed
Transaction and thus are damaged thereby.

Lionbridge is a provider of language, development and testing
solutions that enable clients to develop, release, manage and
maintain their technology applications and content globally.

Defendant H.I.G. Capital, LLC is a Miami based global private
equity and alternative assets investment firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

   Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
   RM LAW, P.C.
   995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
   Wayne, PA 19087
   Tel: (484) 588-5516


LOUISIANA: School Board to Join Class Action Against DOTD
---------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Truax, writing for The Livingston Parish News, reports
that the School Board will be joining the class action lawsuit
against the state Department of Transportation and Development
over the role the concrete median barrier wall played in the flood
of 2016.

In introducing the matter to the board, Superintendent of Schools
Rick Wentzel said the concrete barrier -- extending 19 miles from
East Baton Rouge Parish into Livingston Parish -- acted as a flood
wall, retaining water north of I-12.

"This impacted schools as well as the businesses and homes that we
in part rely on for income," Mr. Wentzel said.  "I'm asking the
board to join in this suit to correct the design of the wall in
Livingston Parish and keep further construction of the median
throughout Livingston Parish using a flawed design to impact other
schools, land owners and businesses in the rest of the parish."

Joshua Palmintier of DeGravelles Palmintier law firm told the
board a team of world renowned hydrologists and knowledgeable
attorneys have been put together and are in it for the long haul.

"Our primary focus is to have something done about the wall,"
Mr. Palmintier said.  "Secondarily, if successful, we will look to
get recovery for all those devastated by the flood -- homeowners,
businesses and government entities."

Mr. Palmintier said the City of Walker and the City of Denham
Springs have joined the suit and talks are currently underway to
bring Livingston Parish government and the City of Central
onboard.

"With every new governmental entity that we add, it adds
legitimacy to the lawsuit," Mr. Palmintier said.

Mr. Palmintier said the board would not incur any expenses joining
the class action lawsuit.

When questioned on the timeframe for the lawsuit, Mr. Palmintier
said it is not clear this early on how long it will take to
settle.

"This type of suit can take years upon years," Mr. Palmintier
said.  "What we hope for is to have the hydrology team do dynamic
hydrological mapping and modelling quickly.  Because of past
experiences with Katrina and the BP oil spill, if you get your
ducks in a row early on, you have a better chance of shortening
the time period."

Mr. Palmintier said the goal is to have the state DOTD address the
wall before the beginning of the next hurricane season.

In other action, the board watched a performance of Lion King
Junior from students of talented art teacher Melanie Glascock. The
play will take place at the Suma Center Jan. 26-28.


LUCAVA INC: Faces "Zamorano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Zamorano and Victor Vidal, Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. Lucava, Inc. d/b/a Giovanni's
Brooklyn Easts and Giovanni Tafuri, as an individual, Defendants,
Case No. CV17-0128 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for payment of overtime for work performed
in excess of 40 hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Ohio Wage Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
   69-12 Austin Street
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: 718-263-9591
   Fax: 718-263-9598


MANAGED RECOVERY: Faces "Strak" Suit in Dist. of South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Managed Recovery
Systems Inc. The case is captioned as Jennifer Strak, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Managed Recovery Systems Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00159-BHH (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Bruce Howe Hendricks.

Managed Recovery helps debtors clear their debt, keep their credit
in good standing, and increase accounts receivable return.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD LAW OFFICE
          5217 N Trenholm Road, Suite B
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 509 6800
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com


MATTEL: Bakersfield Woman Sues Over Non-Hatching Hatchimals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tory Brecht at WQAD 8 reports a Bakersfield woman is suing the
company behind Hatchimals, one of the hottest toys this past
holiday season.

Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- of
Geragos& Geragos is representing Jodie Hejduk in a class action
lawsuit over the toy, which never hatched.

The toy retails for $50 to $60, but they often went for more than
that because of demand. The toy is supposed to "hatch" from an egg
when children knock, tap, or rub on the shell after about 30
minutes of playtime. The Hatchimal inside responds with lights and
sounds and eventually hatches into a creature kids can talk and
engage with.

There have been a number of reports from around the nation of the
toys not working as advertised. Unhappy customers aired their
frustrations with the toy on Twitter in the days after Christmas.
Mattel said on Twitter it was aware of the issue and was working
to fix it.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Matters Underway in Sprint Fidelis Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that pretrial proceedings
are underway in a class action lawsuit related to Sprint Fidelis.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.


MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 4,300 INFUSE Litigation Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that as of December 1,
2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately
4,300 of INFUSE litigation claims.

The Company estimates law firms representing approximately 6,000
claimants have asserted or intend to assert personal injury claims
against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts involving
the INFUSE bone graft product. As of December 1, 2016, the Company
has reached agreements to settle approximately 4,300 of these
claims, and certain of the remaining claims are expected to
proceed to trial beginning in fiscal year 2017.


MEDTRONIC PLC: To Settle 7,600 of Pelvic Mesh Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that as of December 1,
2016, the Company has reached agreements to settle approximately
7,600 of Pelvic Mesh claims.

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently
involved in litigation in various state and federal courts against
manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal injuries
resulting from the implantation of those products. Two
subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of
the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation. The
litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia and
cases in various state courts and jurisdictions outside the U.S.
Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. In July
2015, the Company and Bard agreed that Bard would pay the Company
$121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims.
That agreement does not resolve the dispute between the Company
and Bard with respect to claims that do not settle, if any. As
part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's
obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company
estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants
have asserted or may assert claims involving products manufactured
by Covidien's subsidiaries. As of December 1, 2016, the Company
has reached agreements to settle approximately 7,600 of these
claims.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Appeal in West Virginia Pipe Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that an appeal in the
class action lawsuit by West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace
remains pending.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding
the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8,
2010 through August 3, 2011.

The matters were consolidated in September, 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

On September 30, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Decision from Minnesota Court Expected in 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that a decision from the
Minnesota Supreme Court related to a class action lawsuit over the
acquisition of Covidien is expected in calendar year 2017.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged
that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014,
Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an
injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In
September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On
January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its
opinion.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the
Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court
is expected in calendar year 2017.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Defending Against HeartWare Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit against HeartWare.

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class
Period"). The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims
HeartWare and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare's
response to a June 2014 FDA warning letter, the development of the
Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the
proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of
HeartWare's stock during the Class Period. In August of 2016 the
Company acquired HeartWare.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants & Medical
Credit Corporation. The case is styled as Paula D. Huntley and
Jeroleum A. Biggs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Merchants & Medical Credit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00286 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
18, 2017).

Merchants & Medical is a collection agency which provides
adjustment and collection services for insurance and financial
sectors.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MERCURY CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Sought in "Cruz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Erasmo Cruz, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercury Construction
Concepts, Inc. and Andrew Russac, an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00153, (S.D. N.Y., January 9, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Acts and New York Labor
Law, as well as damages resulting from failure to provide
Plaintiff with any wage statements on each payday.

Mercury Construction is a corporation engaged in the construction
business, and provides its services to customers primarily in
Manhattan with Russac as the owner. Plaintiff worked as a
construction laborer from about May 2007 to September 10, 2016,
whose duties mainly consisted of laying cement, installing kitchen
and bathroom cabinets, laying tile, painting rooms, hanging
sheetrock, carrying materials and tools, and keeping work areas
clean. Cruz claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joan B. Lopez, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


MOTOR VILLAGE: Proposed Settlement Reached, CPT Group Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. disclosed that a proposed settlement has been
reached in the class action lawsuit Passage, et al. v. Motor
Village of Los Angeles, No. BC542025, pending in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

If you are a former non-exempt service technician who worked for
La Brea Avenue Motors, Inc. at either or both of the following
locations below between April 9, 2010 and September 20, 2011, you
may be eligible for payment from the class action settlement.

La Brea Chrysler Jeep dealership, located at 401 South La Brea
Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90036

Motor Village of Los Angeles dealership, located at 2025 South
Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California 90007.

In order to determine whether you are eligible for payment, please
visit www.labreatechsettlement.com or contact the claims
administrator at 1-844-661-1242.


MUNYAN RESTORATION: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Josue Velasquez, Plaintiff v. Munyan Restoration, Waterproofing &
Painting Service, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14012-RLR (S.D.
Fla., January 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates a company that performs painting,
waterproofing and repair of condominiums and commercial
structures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
   Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
   CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
   721 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 201
   North Palm Beach, FL 33408
   Tel: 561-822-3446
   Fax: (305) 574-0132
   Email: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com
          Darren@cloorg.com


N.H. INC: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Payment of Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Mitchell Cruz Ortiz and Joiselyn C Robleto, Plaintiffs,
and all others similarly situated v. N.H. Inc. a/k/a Meridian Food
Market/Money Gram, Mohammed Hossain, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
20169 (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for payment of overtime work pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Law Dept. Settles Class Action Over Summonses
-------------------------------------------------------
AMNewYork's Alison Fox and Reuters report that New York City's law
department on Jan. 23 agreed to pay $75 million in a
class-action lawsuit settlement after the NYPD was accused of
issuing summonses without probable cause in order to meet quotas.

The suit, first filed in 2010, alleged that police would stop and
arrest people regardless of whether a crime or violation was
committed.

According to court papers, 899,719 summonses were dismissed on the
grounds of being factually insufficient from May 2007 to December
2015.

"This settlement reflects the remarkable progress the NYPD has
made to ensure that summonses are properly drafted and include
sufficient details to document probable cause," law department
corporation counsel Zachary W. Carter said in a statement.  "This
agreement is a fair resolution for class members and brings an end
to a long-standing and complex case in the best interests of the
city."

The city will set aside $56.5 million to pay a maximum of $150 per
person covered by the deal per incident, the law department said.
Another $18.5 million would go toward paying attorneys' fees.

A law department spokesman said the court still has to approve the
settlement following a fairness hearing, expected to take place in
about three months.

"We have achieved a landmark settlement in a civil rights case
that advances the cause of justice," said Elinor Sutton --
elinorsutton@quinnemanuel.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs with
the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquart & Sullivan.

The law department spokesman said the NYPD has since updated its
training, and will reiterate to officers and other ranks that the
department will not use quotas.

The settlement comes after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the
Criminal Justice Reform Act in June, a series of eight bills which
defer many nonviolent offenses to an administrative court, rather
than having them wind up in criminal court.

Under the law, police still have the option to make an arrest or
issue a criminal summons.


NISSAN NORTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Melting Dashboard
--------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal News Line reports a Florida customer is
suing Nissan, alleging design defect, liability, negligent
misrepresentation and product liability.

Neil Heuer of Naples, Florida, filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jan.
4 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against Nissan North America Inc., alleging the defendant installs
a dashboard that melts and emits a noxious chemical smell on its
vehicles.

According to the complaint, Heuer purchased a Nissan GT-R vehicle
that had its dashboard melt, causing a glare on the windshield
reducing his vision. The plaintiff alleges Nissan North America
knew of the defective nature of the dashboard found inside its GT-
R vehicles but failed to inform its owners or offer to fix the
defect.

Heuer seeks trial by jury, actual damages, restitution and
disgorgement, repair the dashboard defect, interest, court costs
and all further relief the court grants. He is represented by
attorneys Ross Appel and Emily Komlossy of Komlossy Law PA in
Hollywood, Florida, and by Oren Giskan and Catherine E. Anderson
of Giskan Solotaroff, & Anderson LLP in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 0:17-cv-60018-RNS


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Cancemi" Suit in E. D. N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group,
Inc. The case is captioned as Melissa J. Cancemi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Northland Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00288
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2017).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NOVO NORDISK: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Novo Nordisk A/S and certain
of its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Novo American Depositary
Receipts between April 30, 2015 and October 27, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors with losses in excess of
$1 million are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/nvo.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Novo
reported materially false and misleading Company earnings and
predications, in that they were inflated through the collusive
price fixing of Novo's insulin drugs. The Complaint also alleges
that Novo misrepresented and concealed the true extent of the
pricing pressures it was experiencing from pharmacy benefit
managers.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/nvo,or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. Investors with losses in
excess of $1 million in Novo, you have until March 13, 2017 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of OneMain Holdings, Inc. securities (OMF) from
March 3, 2015 through November 7, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for OneMain
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the OneMain class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1028.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
caused OneMain to issue materially misleading representations
and/or omit material information regarding the projected net
income to be achieved by OneMain following, and in large part due
to, the combination of OneMain Financial with Springleaf and the
purported synergies achieved by the combined company. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 20, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1028.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION: Faces "Micholle" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Micholle, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ophthotech Corporation, David R.
Guyer, Michael G. Atieh, Glenn P. Sblendorio and Samir Patel,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00210 (S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages against the Defendants for
misrepresentations or failure to disclose material facts during
the class period between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016,
inclusive.

The Plaintiff contends that the "Safe Harbor" warnings
accompanying the Company's purportedly forward looking statements
during the Class Period were ineffective to shield those
statements from liability.

The Defendants, according to the Plaintiff, are liable for any
false or leading forward-looking statement because at the time
that each such statement was made, the speaker knew it was false
or misleading or that it was authorized and/or approved by an
executive officer who knew it was false or misleading.

Defendant Opthotech is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of novel therapeutics to treat
back of the eye diseases, with a focus on developing innovatice
therapies for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
   Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
   Meghan Daley, Esq.
   LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
   733 Summer Street, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (203) 922-4523
   Fax: (212) 363-7171


ORACLE AMERICA: Labor Dept. Files Hiring Discrimination Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Oracle America
Inc. on Jan. 18 was sued by the Department of Labor for allegedly
favoring people of Indian descent in hiring while paying white men
more than women and minorities, making it the third major Silicon
Valley company to land in the labor enforcer's crosshairs in less
than a year.

Oracle, represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe senior
counsel Gary Sinsicalco, is also accused of failing to turn over
compensation and hiring data in violation of rules that apply to
federal government contractors.  The Labor Department complaint
seeks to cancel Oracle's millions of dollars in existing contracts
and debarment to preclude it from participating in future bids.

The suit comes on the heels of an action against Google Inc. in
early January for allegedly failing to hand over employee pay data
as part of a routine compliance evaluation by the department's
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).  Last
September, Palantir Inc. was sued by the department over alleged
discrimination against Asian applicants in hiring.

Janet Herold, the Labor Department's regional solicitor in San
Francisco, on Jan. 18 insisted that the department isn't targeting
tech firms and said that the auditing was done at random.  "I
think that the reality of why this happened is that Silicon Valley
[companies] have become big federal contractors," she said.

Ms. Herold, however, added that the results of the investigations
reflect the larger debate about a lack of diversity in the Valley,
and particularly the lack of opportunities for women.
Orrick's Sinsicalco declined to comment.  Oracle spokeswoman
Deborah Hellinger called the complaint "politically motivated,
based on false allegations, and wholly without merit."

"Oracle values diversity and inclusion, and is a responsible equal
opportunity and affirmative action employer.  Our hiring and pay
decisions are non-discriminatory and made based on legitimate
business factors including experience and merit,"
Ms. Hellinger said in a statement.

She declined to elaborate as to why Oracle believes the suit was
politically motivated, but Oracle CEO Safra Catz is reportedly
serving on the transition team of President-elect Donald Trump.
(Ms. Herold pointed out that the department's "Notice of
Violation" was issued to Oracle in March 2016.)

Julia Judish -- julia.judish@pillsburylaw.com -- an attorney at
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who advises companies in Labor
Department audits, said that most suits over alleged violations of
federal contractor rules do not end in debarment or cancellation
of contracts.  "That's very rare.  This is clearly a shot across
the bow," she said.

"It looks from these complaints that the OFCCP is trying to change
the hiring culture at these companies," Ms. Judish added, pointing
out that both the Palantir suit and the Oracle case call out the
practice of heavily relying on existing employee referrals for
hiring new workers.

"Employee referrals are not illegal. The problems arise when you
have a company that is already not diverse in its workforce," she
said.  "People like to hire people like them."

The complaint specifically targets Oracle's headquarters in
Redwood Shores.  That's customary for these types of actions,
which start with compliance audits of specific contractor offices.
The department conducts thousands of such audits each year,
according to Ms. Judish, most of them without event.

According to the Labor Department's complaint, Oracle has engaged
in "systemic compensation discrimination" against women, Asians,
and African-Americans across 80 job titles at its headquarters.
For female product developers -- a category including programmers
-- Ms. Herold said government statisticians had determined there
was a roughly one in a trillion chance that the pay disparity
could be explained by anything other than discrimination.

At the same time, the complaint alleges that from as early as
January 2013, Oracle has used a hiring process that has
disproportionately favored applicants of Indian origin.  The
complaint identifies this group as "Asian applicants, particularly
Indian Asians," but Herold said that Oracle's hiring practices
essentially only benefited Indian applicants and not other Asians.

The Labor Department investigated whether Oracle was favoring H1B
visa holders from India who might be paid less than American
citizens, Ms. Herold said.  "We definitely considered that, but it
can't be explained by that," she said, adding that the department
had concluded Oracle is engaged in "national origin
discrimination."

Ms. Judish speculated that Oracle may have decided not to hand
over all of the data requested by the Labor Department because it
felt the government was over-reaching.  For big companies like
Google and Oracle that have the resources to fight back, she said,
choosing to take an adversarial approach may be intended to draw a
line in the sand and avoid future scrutiny.

But it also is one of the surest ways to get sued, Ms. Judish
added.  The department "takes very seriously its authority to get
the information that they feel they need in order to conduct a
compliance review."


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Illegally Converts Grants to Loans, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natinal Law Review reports that two teachers, Ashley Ford and
David West, filed a projected class action against the
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a Pennsylvania-
based student loan servicer, which the teachers allege has been
improperly converting federal teaching grants into loans for its
own financial gain. Such fraudulent action is alleged to be in
direct violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Ford and West claim that the Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, which is the only servicer of awards to
teachers from the Teacher Education Assistance for College and
Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program, has established a practice
of converting the TEACH grants into interest-bearing loans.

TEACH grants are awarded to college students who commit to working
in four-year teaching positions, generally in hard-to-fill special
education or art positions and often at low-income schools
throughout the country.

The teachers stated that if the TEACH program student participant
chooses not to fulfill the four-year obligation, then the grant
converts to a loan. However, Ford and West claim that they have
fulfilled and continue to fulfill their obligations under the
program, and that their grants were wrongfully converted by the
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency to interest-
bearing loans that have accrued years of interest with high
monthly payments.

As of June 2015, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency was managing about $444.5 million in TEACH grants. And once
notified of the unlawful conversion, the agency refused to convert
the loans back into grants and did not offer Ford or West any
alternatives or recourse. The teachers, in their lawsuit, estimate
that to date at least 2,000 grants had been wrongly converted.

Ford and West aim to represent a putative class comprised of U.S.
teachers who received TEACH grants serviced by Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency and who submitted all the necessary
documentation establishing that they've fulfilled their
obligations under the TEACH Grant program, but who have still had
their grants converted to interest-bearing loans between July 2013
and the present.

The case is Ford et al. v. Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, case number 5:17-cv-00049, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.


PETROBRAS: Investors Launch Compensation Case in Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that institutional investors who say
they lost billions of dollars as a result of the corruption
scandal at Brazilian state-run oil giant Petrobras have launched a
compensation case in the Netherlands.

In a statement on Jan. 24, a coalition of investors said it filed
a 172-page writ at the District Court of Rotterdam claiming that
investors lost billions following "significant asset write-downs
and precipitous declines in Petrobras share prices" after
allegations of fraud and kickbacks were revealed in 2014.

The coalition represents investors who bought Petrobras securities
in Brazil and elsewhere and who are not covered by litigation in
the United States.

Petrobras Global Finance BV and other Petrobras units have offices
in Rotterdam.

The investors added that the Netherlands is an ideal jurisdiction
to pursue the case as the Dutch legal system has precedents for
international investors seeking compensation for damages caused by
fraud and violations of international securities laws.

In a statement, Petrobras said investigators and Brazil's supreme
court consider the company a victim, and thus Petrobras has
received tens of millions of dollars recovered over the course of
the investigation into the kickback scheme.

It was not immediately clear when hearings in the Dutch case would
be held.


PREMIER ORGANICS: Insurers Refuse to Cover Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
insurance companies whose policyholder, Premier Organics, stands
accused of misleading consumers about the healthiness of its
coconut oil, launched their own suit on Jan. 20 in California
claiming nothing in the underlying proposed class action complaint
triggered coverage.

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and Travelers Property
Casualty Co. of America, along with American Economy Insurance
Co., First National Insurance Co. of America and Golden Eagle
Insurance Corp. all contended in a federal complaint that none of
the policies they'd issued Premier Organics Inc. since 2011
pertained to the false labeling allegations launched by
Alan Ducorsky in January 2016.

In that underlying suit, Mr. Ducorsky alleged that Premier had
misrepresented its Artisana coconut oil as a healthy product when
it actually contained dangerous amounts of saturated fat, the
consumption of which causes serious illnesses including heart
disease and strokes.

Each of the insurers initially accepted Premier's request for a
defense, but reserved their rights to rescind coverage and seek
reimbursement, which they exercised on Jan. 20.

American Insurance had issued Premier a year-long commercial
policy starting in September 2011, followed by two consecutive
policies issued by First National covering September 2012 through
2014, each of which covered claims resulting from bodily injury,
property damage or personal and advertising injury.  Golden Eagle
provided excess coverage throughout that time as well.

But all three of those insurers argued on Jan. 20 that they have
no duty to defend Premier because nothing in the underlying
complaint points to bodily injury, and none of the personal or
advertising injury claims qualify under the terms of the policy.

What's more, their policies also include an exclusion which bars
coverage for claims of personal and advertising injury arising out
of the "failure of goods, products or services to conform with any
statement of quality or performance made in your advertisement,"
those insurers said.

Travelers also issued both primary and excess policies to Premier
Organics from September 2014 through September 2016 which likewise
covered bodily injury and personal and advertising claims, but
they too say neither of their policies apply to the underlying
complaint.

Each of the Travelers policies also exclude coverage for those
injuries when they are "expected or intended" from the standpoint
of the insured, they said.

"The complaint in the underlying action alleges that the
challenged mislabeling and misrepresentations with respect to the
healthfulness of Premier's coconut oil, rather than being
accidental, were undertaken 'with full knowledge or reckless
disregard' by 'the senior officers and directors of Premier' and
that the high level of saturated fat in Premier's coconut oil was
disclosed on the oil's nutrition label," the group of insurers
wrote.

Each of the insurers on Jan. 20 sought a judge's declaration that
they have no duty to defend, and each sought reimbursement for the
defense they've already provided.

A representative for Premier Organics could not immediately be
reached for comment, and counsel information wasn't immediately
available.

In Mr. Ducorsky's January 2016 proposed class action, he claimed
Premier violated California's False Advertising and Unfair
Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act by tricking
consumers into believing its product was safe when it actually
contained high levels of unhealthy fat.  He sought both
reimbursement and an injunction to change the label.

The insurers pointed out on Jan. 20 that coverage cannot exist for
claims stemming from the state's UCL or False Advertising Law
because the only remedies available are injunctive relief, which
do not constitute damages.

Travelers is represented by Bruce D. Celebrezze and Alexander E.
Potente of Sedgwick LLP.  American is represented by
Kelley K. Beck -- kbeck@lindahlbeck.com -- of Lindahl Beck LLP.

The case is Travelers Indemnity Co. et al. v. Premier Organics
Inc., case number 3:17-cv-00302, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


PROSPECT HALL CATERERS: "Daniel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Prospect Hall Caterers, Inc., Michael
Halkias and Alice Halkias, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00139, (E.D. N.Y., January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, damages for unreasonably delayed payment of
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
and disbursements of this action pursuant to New York Labor Laws
and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a cook for Grand Prospect Hall, Defendants' event
and catering hall located in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants deprived her of her overtime pay, accurate
paystubs and spread-of-hours premium pay for working shifts in
excess of ten hours.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


PULTE HOMES: "Bowdy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bowdy, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pulte Homes of Texas, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00010, (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2017),
seeks liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, taxable costs of the
court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other legal and
equitable relief for non-payment of overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a field manager by the Defendant, a
housing developer. Bowdy worked consistently 60-80 hours a week,
was required to work off the clock both after work and on weekends
in order to get the job done. He was typically paid overtime for
the first five hours in excess of 40 hours a week but was not paid
overtime for all hours worked and was restricted to working no
more than 50 hours a week on the clock.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Melton, Esq.
      THE MELTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 330-0017
      Fax: (512) 330-0067
      Email: jmelton@jfmeltonlaw.com


QUALCOMM INC: Bornstein, et al. Allege Anticompetitive Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordie Bornstein, Cordt Byrne, Elliot Carter, Jeff Ciotti, Dwight
Dickerson, Matthew Christianson, Logan Griesemer, Ryan Hart,
William Horton, Steve Krug, Gail Margolis, Kate Mortensen, Alyssa
Nee, Christopher Whalen, Stephan Farid Wozniak, Christopher Zayas-
Bazan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00234 (N.D. Cal., January 18, 2017),
alleges anticompetitive conduct by Defendants in acquiring and
maintaining its monopoly over the modem chipset market and abusing
the intellectual property rights underlying this technology, and
charging an excessive and unlawful royalty on cellular phones or
devices incorporating such patents.

Qualcomm Inc. was one of the earliest developers of cellular
technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
     Samantha J. Stein, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
            clebsock@hausfeld.com
            bwecker@hausfeld.com
            sstein@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202)-540-7200
     Fax: (202)-540-7201
     Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com


QUALCOMM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 24
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Qualcomm Incorporated securities (QCOM) from
February 1, 2012 through January 17, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Qualcomm investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Qualcomm class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1030.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Qualcomm was engaging and/or had engaged in
anticompetitive conduct to maintain a monopoly for semiconductors
used in mobile phones in violation of the FTC Act; (2) in turn,
Qualcomm lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (3) as a result, the Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 24, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1030.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


RENT-A-CENTER: Sacramento Man Sues Over Labor Laws Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Northern California Record reports a
Sacramento man formerly employed by Rent-A-Center alleges the
company violated labor laws.

Kureen Cook filed a complaint on Jan. 9 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California against Rent-A-Center Inc.,
Rent-A-Center West Inc., Rent-A-Center Franchising International
Inc. and Does 1-10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by the defendants as a non-exempt employee from July 2013
to April 2016. He alleges he was required to work more than eight
hours per day and was not provided with proper meals and rest
periods.

The plaintiffs hold Rent-A-Center Inc., Rent-A-Center West Inc.,
Rent-A-Center Franchising International Inc. and Does 1-10
responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to properly
calculate plaintiffs' overtime rates, failed to include all forms
of remuneration, failed to provide paid sick leave benefits, and
failed to pay earned overtime wages, minimum wages, and meal and
rest period premiums due.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
defendants, certify collective action, damages, unpaid wages,
penalties, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, costs of suit,
interest, and further relief as the court may deem equitable.

                             *     *    *

The case is Kureen Cook, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Rent-A-Center, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Rent-A-Center West,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Rent-A-Center Franchising
International, Inc., a Texas corporation and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00048, (E.D. Cal., January
9, 2017).

Defendants are a furniture and electronics rent-to-own company
based in Plano, Texas doing business as "Rent-A-Center."
Defendants provide new and used furniture, appliances, computers,
and electronics from name brand companies using their rent-to-own
business model with more than 2,000 Rent-A-Center store locations
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RETAIL CENTERS: Faces Paradise Wire Suit Over AFIN Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan, et al.,
Plaintiffs, individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell, AR Global Investments LLC, American Finance
Trust, Inc, CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, American
Realty Capital-Retail Centers of America, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00132-CCB (D. Md., January 13, 2017) is brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of Retail Centers of America,
Inc.(RCA), to enjoin the proposed transaction in which American
Finance Trust, Inc. will acquire each outstanding share of RCA
common stock through a "flawed process and inadequate
consideration".

Defendant RCA is a Maryland corporation organized as a real estate
investment trust ("REIT").

Defendant AFIN is organized as a real estate investment trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John B. Isbister, Esq.
   Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
   TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
   100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 752-9700
   Fax: (410) 727-5460
   Email: jisbister@tydingslaw.com
          dkatz@tydingslaw.com

         - and -

   Lyda J. Grant, Esq.
   The Grant Law Firm, PLLC
   521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
   New York, NY 10175
   Tel: (212) 292-4441
   Fax: (212) 292-4442
   Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com

         - and -

   Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
   Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
   One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
   New York, NY 10119
   Tel: (212) 279-5050
   Fax: (212) 279-3655
   Email: JAbraham@aftlaw.com


RISHAVENA INC: "Avril" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyne Avril, Plaintiff, v. Rishavena, Inc., Rishavena Home
Health Care Agency Inc., Marc Richard Hilaire, Vena Laurent-
Hilaire, Talhia Duchatelier, Ruthmelle Millien and Abraham Steel,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00116, (E.D. N.Y., January 9, 2017),
seeks recovery of money damages arising from violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws and failure to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
wages; and recovery of illegal deductions.  The suit also seeks
injunctive relief resulting from Defendants' retaliation against
Ms. Avril for lodging her complaint.

Rishavena Home Health Care Agency Inc. is a home health care
agency with its principal place of business located at 1338 East
69th Street, Brooklyn, New York. Ms. Avril was hired by Defendants
as a Home Health Aide. Throughout her employment, deductions for
direct deposit, workers' compensation premiums and costs of
physical examinations required by Defendants were taken from her
pay. She also claims that her overtime hours were shaved off her
wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., Esq.
      MOUTONDELL'ANNO LLP
      305 Broadway, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Phone/Fax: (646) 706-7481
      Email: gmouton@moutondellanno.com


S.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit for Violation of Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Elana Pera and Sarah Murphy, Plaintiffs, individually an on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. S.A.W. Entertainment LTD.,
d/b/a Condor Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00138-
DMR (N.D. Cal., January 11, 2017), is brought against Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of California Labor
Code.

The complaint says that Defendant has misclassified the Plaintiffs
as independent contractor.  Plaintiffs have worked as exotic
dancers.

Defendant's operates the Condor Gentlemen's Club located at 560
Broadway Street in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

   Michael L. Freedman, Esq.
   Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
   466 Geary St., Suite 201
   San Francisco, CA 94102
   Tel: (415) 630-2651
   Email: mfreedman@llrlaw.com


SALLY BEAUTY: Faces "Ibrahim" Suit in Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sally Beauty Supply,
LLC. The case is titled as Rosalie Camarena Ibrahim, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00429-FMO-AFM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 18,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Sally Beauty is an international specialty retailer and
distributor of professional beauty supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


SALTY GATOR: Glass, et al. Seek to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
TYWANA GLASS, SARAH SMITH, DEONDRE BURRESS, ALEXANDER JORDAN,
CHRISTOPHER REED and BELINDA COLLIER, on behalf of Themselves and
all Other Employees or Former Employees of the SALTY GATOR TRADING
CO. L.P., Plaintiffs, vs. DANIEL O'CONNER, III; DOUGLAS WEAVER,
SR., Personally and as the General Partners of SALTY GATOR TRADING
CO. L.P. and SALTY GATOR TRADING CO., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00080-HGD (N.D. Ala., January 17, 2017), seeks wages for
servers, dishwashers, maintenance assistants and managers for each
hour worked and overtime compensation for each hour over the
forty-hour work week under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Salty Gator Trading Co. L.P. operated a bar and restaurant called
Salty Gator at 10020 South Memorial Parkway, Huntsville, AL 35803.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
     D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
     Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
     MASTANDO &ARTRIP, LLC
     301 Washington St., Suite 302
     Huntsville, AL 35801
     Phone: (256) 532-2222
     Fax: (256) 513-7489
     E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
             teri@mastandoartrip.com
             artrip@mastandoartrip.com


SANOFI US: Castillo Files Anti-trust Suit Over Insulin Glargine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANOFI, U.S. and SANOFI GmbH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10042, (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2016),
seeks to recover threefold damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from Sanofi's unlawful monopolization of
the United States market for insulin glargine in violation of the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Insulin glargine is a long-acting analog insulin for management of
diabetes. Sanofi was commercially selling vials and injector
cartridge formulations of the drug in the U.S. under the trademark
Lantus.

Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of
business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1
Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased
clobetasol propionate topical ointment directly from one or more
Defendants at excessive prices.

Sanofi U.S. is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business located at 55 Corporate Drive,
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. Sanofi GmbH is a German
corporation, with its principal place of business located at
Industriepark Hoechst, Bldg. K607, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany D-
65926.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             kristiel@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth. Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 722-7053
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

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


SARAVIA FAMILY: "Ruiz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Juan Ruiz, Edward Lacosse, Jr.,
Richard Bostwick, II, Richard Bostwick, III, Maggie Gardner, Tracy
Jalbert, and Samantha Souis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Saravia Family
Restaurants, Inc., and Rolando Saravia, the Defendants, Case No.
1676-CV-00342, was removed from the Berkshire County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Springfield). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-30009 to the proceeding.

Saravia Family Restaurants is a family-owned restaurant business.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy M Netkovick, Esq.
          WEINER & LANGE, P.C.
          95 State St., Suite 918
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 732 6840
          Facsimile: (413) 785 5666
          E-mail: tnetkovick@theroyallawfirm.com


SEATTLE GENETICS: Faces "Patel" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Samit Patel, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Seattle Genetics, Inc., Clay B. Siegall and
Todd E. Simpson, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00041 (W.D. Wash.,
January 10, 2017), seeks damages for alleged misleading and false
statement by the Defendants during the class period.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants had actual knowledge of the
materially false and misleading statements and material omissions
alleged herein and intended thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class.

Defendant Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on
developing and commercializing innovative, empowered monoclonal
antibody-based therapies for the treatment of cancer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cliff Cantor, Esq.
   Law Offices of Clifford A. Cantor, P.C.
   627 208th Ave. SE
   Sammamish, WA 98074
   Tel: 425-868-7813
   Fax: 425-732-3752
   Email: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

        - and -

   Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
   J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
   Hui M. Chang, Esq.
   Pomerantz LLP
   600 Third Ave., 20th Fl.
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-661-1100
   Fax: 212-661-8665
   Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
          ahood@pomlaw.com
          hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

   Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
   Pomerantz LLP
   10 South La Salle St., Ste. 3505
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: 312-377-1181
   Fax: 312-377-1184
   Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

   Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
   Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
   60 East 42nd St., Ste. 4600
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: 212-697-6484
   Fax: 212-697-7296
   Email: peretz@bgandg.com


SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Seattle Genetics Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Western
District of Washington, and docketed under 17-cv-00041, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Seattle Genetics securities
between October 27, 2016 and December 23, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Seattle Genetics securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 13, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Seattle Genetics develops and commercializes targeted therapies
for the treatment of cancer worldwide.  Among the Company's
products in development is SGN-CD33A (vadastuximab talirine).
Throughout the Class Period, vadastuximab talirine was in clinical
trials for various applications, including, in relevant part: (i)
a Phase 1/2 trial in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as
a pre-conditioning regimen prior to an allogenic stem cell
transplant and as a maintenance therapy following transplant; (ii)
a Phase 1 trial evaluating vadastuximab talirine monotherapy,
including a subset of older AML patients in combination with
hypomethylating agents; and (iii) a Phase 1 trial evaluating
vadastuximab talirine combination treatment with 7+3 chemotherapy
in newly diagnosed younger AML patients.

The Complaint 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) vadastuximab talirine presents a significant risk of
fatal hepatotoxicity; (ii) as such, Seattle Genetics had
overstated the viability of vadastuximab talirine as an AML
treatment; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Seattle
Genetics' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics issued a press release and
filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold
or partial clinical hold on several early stage trials of the
Company's experimental cancer drug, vadastuximab talirine, to
evaluate the potential risk of hepatotoxicity.

On this news, Seattle Genetics' share price fell $9.50, or 15.36%,
to close at $52.36 on December 27, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail:rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


SHIPRA ENTERPRISE: Faces "Pease" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Shani Pease, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Shipra Enterprise Inc. d/b/a Montessori
School, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00067 (S.D.Tex., January 10,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Shipra Enterprise Inc. d/b/a Montessori School is
engaged in providing childcare and educational needs to students
attending Montessori Schools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   The Foley Law Firm
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


SIRIUS XM: Dewey Pegno's Kramarsky Examines Flo & Eddie Opinion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Kramarsky, Esq. -- skramarsky@dpklaw.com -- a member of
Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky, in an article for New York Journal,
reports that copyright questions are rarely easy.  Even the simple
questions don't always have straightforward answers: What kinds of
works are protected? What does it mean to be protected? Under
current federal copyright law, both of those fundamental questions
have enormously complex answers.

Although copyright evolved through the English common law and was
adapted by into state common law in the United States, it is now
primarily governed by federal statutes.  As a practical matter,
only those categories of works covered by the federal statute
(listed in Sec. 102(a) of the Copyright Act) are protected.

"Protection" gives the owner of the copyright certain specific,
exclusive rights (subject to statutory exceptions), which the
owner can prevent others from exercising without permission.  But
just to keep things interesting, even those exclusive rights vary
depending on what kind of work is at issue, and even when the work
was made.

One of the most complex of these rights is the right of "public
performance," currently enshrined in Secs. 106(4) and 106(6) of
the Copyright Act.  For certain works -- such as plays, musical
compositions and movies -- the idea of a public performance is
fairly straightforward.  It means putting on the play, playing the
piece or showing the movie to the public.  The law gives the
copyright holder the exclusive right to control that use.  But
difficulty arises with respect to "sound recordings," a relative
newcomer to copyright protection.  Under current federal law, the
right to "public performance" of a sound recording is very
restricted.  It is essentially limited to transmitting the
recording over a subscription digital radio or streaming service.
And although that limited right is very important in the Internet
age, its scope is further narrowed to apply only to recordings
made after Feb. 15, 1972.

The question of the treatment of earlier recordings was recently
examined in great depth by the New York Court of Appeals (at the
request of the Second Circuit) in an opinion that examines and
provides an excellent overview of this complicated area.

Sound Recordings and the Right of Public Performance
The Court of Appeals opinion in Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM Radio1 is
the culmination of a series of lawsuits brought by the creators of
some well-known and influential pre-1972 recordings. In August
2013, Flo & Eddie, the owners of the master recordings made by
1960s rock group The Turtles (think "Happy Together"), initiated
several lawsuits in federal district courts throughout the
country.  In each case, they sued Sirius XM Radio for broadcasting
songs by The Turtles over its satellite radio network and
streaming them over the Internet.  Sirius admitted that it played
the songs, and that it had never obtained any licenses or paid any
royalties for doing so.  In the New York case, Flo & Eddie
asserted two class-action claims for common-law copyright
infringement and unjust enrichment, both under New York state law.

The Turtles recordings were made prior to Feb. 15, 1972, a
milestone date in U.S. copyright law.  Historically, federal
copyright law protected musical compositions -- but not
recordings.  That changed in 1971, when the Sound Recordings Act
finally brought sound recordings within the scope of the Copyright
Act and granted them certain protections. It did not, however,
grant owners of recordings an exclusive right to public
performance.  Moreover, recordings were only protected if produced
after Feb. 15, 1972.

Years later, with the rise of the Internet and the widespread
ability to make and distribute perfect digital copies, Congress
revisited the performance issue.  In 1995, Congress enacted the
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (or DPRA), which
provided sound recording owners with limited exclusive rights to
control the public performance of recordings "by means of a
digital audio transmission." (Again, there are important
limitations on this right; for instance, non-subscription
broadcasts are excluded.) The DPRA also stated that state-law
rights in recordings from before Feb. 15, 1972 would be enforced
only until 2067 (and as long as they do not conflict with federal
law).

With this legal context in mind, Flo & Eddie chose to assert
state-law claims regarding their pre-1972 recordings. Under the
DPRA, such rights can be enforced--if they exist. Here, the lower
federal court concluded that they did exist under New York common
law, finding in favor of Flo & Eddie on liability.5 But on appeal,
the Second Circuit was not so sure. It certified the question to
the Court of Appeals: Does New York's common law of copyright
recognize a right of public performance for sound recordings? The
Court of Appeals answered that it does not.

There Is No Right, the Court Explains
The Court of Appeals resolved the matter in an extensive, studied
opinion.  The court's analysis proceeded in four general parts.
First, it explained the legislative history of federal copyright
law (outlined above).

Second, the court walked through key cases on related aspects of
copyright law rendered over the years.  In a classic common law
analysis, the court synthesized these cases -- identifying seven
in particular -- many of which were arguably conflicting or could
support different conclusions.  The court began with the premise
that New York law had long distinguished between the right of
"performance" and the rights of copying, printing and
distribution.  Next, the court surveyed the authorities, which it
identified as relevant though not necessarily controlling.  Most
were identified as "anti-piracy" cases that related to the copying
or distributing of a work, not specifically the performance right.

The court also examined Capitol Records v. Naxos of America, a
2005 Court of Appeals decision that holds that there is at least
some New York common law copyright protection for pre-1972 sound
recordings.  But the extent of that protection has never been
fully explored.  By its analysis, the court in Flo & Eddie
established that, historically, copyright was not a single,
monolithic protection, but rather a group of individual rights
doled out based on the character and use of the work.  The court
found no cases specifically recognizing the existence of the
performance right for sound recordings, but that fact alone was
not dispositive: The right might have existed at common law
without being specifically enforced in any case.

Third, the court considered the "understanding and expectations of
society," recognizing that such considerations were "not
dispositive" but could "shed some light" on how "stakeholders in
this arena have . . . understood New York common-law copyright."
The court pointed to a record of industry representatives
testifying that there was no right of performance -- a conclusion
that was bolstered by the four-decade "absence of any artist or
recording company attempting to enforce that right."  In short, if
such a right existed, copyright holders had gone decades without
enforcing it -- including Flo & Eddie, whose recordings had
presumably been in rotation for some 40 years.

Fourth, the court, having established that there was no common-law
right, concluded by stating that the creation of any pre-1972
right would need to be by the legislature.  The court deemed
itself ill-equipped to establish complicated, often conflicting
new rights.  Even Congress took nearly two decades to legislate on
this issue, ultimately creating a statutory framework that is
extremely complex, involving mandatory licensing and many
complicated exceptions.  It is not easy to strike a balance
between the public's right to enjoy these recordings, the
creators' right to compensation, and the creation of incentives
for future artists.  And the court was not prepared to do so.

Finding the Balance
Flo & Eddie does not change the practical landscape much.  Digital
streamers and broadcasters were not previously paying for these
works, and they can now be certain, at least in New York, that
going forward they won't have to.  However, it provides an in-
depth examination of a complex area of copyright law that rarely
gets that kind of treatment, and the policy questions are worth
thinking about.  The concurrence specifically addresses the matter
of "on demand" digital streaming (which presents a host of
additional issues) and the inequities that may arise from the
abuse of such services.  The dissent goes further, suggesting that
performance should be viewed as part of the "bundle" of rights
that must be granted to ensure that artists are fairly compensated
for their work, regardless of when it was created.
These are not trivial objections.  Though as the majority notes,
the balance between fairness to the artist and the (arguably
competing) goal of public access to the arts is not one the court
is especially well-positioned to address.  Nonetheless, the
opinion is worth studying, not least for its thoughtful
examination of these and related policy issues in the broader
field of copyright law.


SOUTHERN CO: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Jan. 23
disclosed that that an institutional investor has commenced a
class action on behalf of purchasers of The Southern Company
("Southern Company") (SO) common stock during the period between
April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013 (the "Class Period").  This
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia and is captioned Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System v. The Southern Company, et al., No.
17-cv-00241-MHC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 23, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/southerncompany/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Southern Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Southern Company is a utility holding company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.  Southern Company's operating subsidiaries
include public utility companies located throughout the
Southeastern United States, including Mississippi Power, Georgia
Power, Alabama Power, Southern Power and Gulf Power.

In 2006, Southern Company announced plans for a "clean coal" plant
to be built in Kemper County, Mississippi (the "Kemper Plant") by
its subsidiary, Mississippi Power.  At the time the project broke
ground in 2010, a funding package of almost $1 billion in U.S.
Department of Energy grants and Internal Revenue Service tax
credits was in place, provided that construction of the plant was
completed by May 2014.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the progress of the Kemper Plant,
assuring investors that the project would be completed by the
critical May 2014 deadline, even when cost overruns and other
delays began to materialize.  As a result of defendants' false
statements and/or omissions, Southern Company common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Then on October 30, 2013, the Company announced its third quarter
2013 financial results, disclosing an after-tax charge of $93
million "related to increased cost estimates for the construction"
of the Kemper Plant.  In addition, defendants disclosed in an
earnings conference call the same day that the in-service date for
the Kemper Plant would be delayed until year-end 2014.  As a
result of these revelations, the price of Southern Company common
stock declined significantly.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Southern Company common stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.


SOUTHERN HEALTH: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Medley Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Medley, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00003 (M.D. Tenn., January 12, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wage for work
performed in excess of 40 hours pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael L. Russell, Esq.
   Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
   GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
   341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
   Franklin, TN 37067
   Tel: 615-354-1144
   Email: mrussell@gilbertfir.com
          eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

   Ryan P. Durham, Esq.
   Ben Boston, Esq.
   Cameron Hoffmeyer, Esq.
   Boston, Holt, Sockwell & Durham, PLLC
   P.O. Box 357
   235 Waterloo Street
   Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
   Tel: (931) 762-716


SPIN MASTER: Faces Class Action Over Hatchimals Toys
----------------------------------------------------
KSDK reports that the holiday's hottest toy is now the focus of a
class action lawsuit.

A California woman is suing the maker of Hatchimals.  She said the
toy she purchased for her daughter never hatched.

The lawsuit claims "millions of children and families across the
globe were sourly disappointed" by the gift.

Some parents took their complaints to social media.

That prompted the toy's maker -- Spin Master -- to encourage
disappointed buyers to contact its customer service.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Sues Over Unauthorized Withdrawals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nadene Moore, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Sprint Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00188 (C.D. Cal, January 10, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) and
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

The Complaint alleged that Defendant attempted to collect extra
funds from Plaintiff's account without the latter's consent.

In around 2015, Plaintiff purchased an electronic tablet from
Defendant. For consideration for the tablet, Plaintiff agreed to
have Defendant withdraw $5 per month on a reoccurring basis.
However, without Plaintiff's consent or permission Defendant began
deducing $7 from Plaintiff's account.  Defendant's automatic
withdrawals caused an overdraft on Plaintiff's bank account,
causing her actual injury in the forms of additional fees, the
Complaint says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: 877-206-4741
   Fax: 866-633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
          abacon@toddflaw.com


ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Cohen Milstein Pushes for Counsel Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan at Law 360 reports two law firms on January 19
continued their push to be appointed co-lead counsel in a putative
class action accusing New Jersey's St. Joseph's Healthcare System
of ERISA violations, telling a federal judge that four other
courts have deemed them worthy of the role in similar suits.

In a notice to U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez and
Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III in Newark, Scott B. Lempert of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC said an Illinois federal judge
on January 18 appointed them co-lead class counsel in a similar
"church plan" case, giving leverage to the firm's argument that
it's best positioned to represent the class claim that St.
Joseph's is underfunding an employee pension plan.

Since two putative class actions against St. Joseph's were filed
in May and then consolidated, Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback
LLP have been battling Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP and Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP for the co-lead counsel role in the
litigation.

The appointment in the Illinois case, Holcomb et al. v. Hospital
Sisters Health System, marks the fourth court to give Cohen
Milstein and Keller Rohrback the lead counsel roles in cases
plagued by contested leadership motions, the notice said.

"In other words, in all church plan cases in which there was more
than one applicant for interim lead counsel, requiring a
determination of which firm or firms are best able to represent
the interests of the class, [counsel in the instant case] was
appointed every time," the notice said.

Prior to their co-lead class counsel appointment in the instant
suit, the firms scored the same role in Sanzone et. al. v. Mercy
Health in Missouri; Hodges et. al. v. Bon Secours Health System in
Maryland and In re: Wheaton Franciscan ERISA Litigation in
Illinois.

In ruling in favor of Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback in the
Illinois case, U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough recognized that
firm's experience representing classes in "numerous" ERISA class
actions involving "church plans," and thus had the greater
knowledge of applicable law, the letter said. The Illinois court
also found the firms more thoroughly pursued identifying and
investigating all potential claims, according to the letter.

The firms also blasted the co-counsel appointment examples relied
upon by Isard Kindell and Kessler Topaz, saying in the notice that
the cases didn't involve competing firms or are disputed decisions
or magistrate recommendations in which the courts didn't make a
determination as to which firms were best able to represent the
interests of the class.

Cohen Milstein and Keller Rohrback filed its suit on May 13 on
behalf of Donna Garbaccio, who was a nurse at St. Joseph's
Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson from 1978 until 1998.

Three days later, Izard Kindall and Kessler Topaz filed a
complaint on behalf of Mary Lynne Barker, who worked for the
medical center from 1968 to 2003; Anne Marie Dalio, who worked
there from 1984 to 1994; and Dorothy Flar, who worked there from
1990 to 1995.

Each complaint challenges St. Joseph's claim that its plan is
exempt under ERISA because it qualifies as a church plan. The
Garbaccio complaint says the pension plan was underfunded by about
$183 million as of Dec. 31, 2014, while the other complaint put
the figure at $212.4 million.

On July 12, Judge Clark consolidated the actions and ordered the
plaintiffs to file a master consolidated complaint by Aug. 11.

But after the parties informed the court that they could not reach
an agreement, Judge Vazquez on Aug. 12 granted their joint request
to file the competing motions seeking appointment as interim co-
lead class counsel.

In addition to their financial resources and related experience,
the firms have stressed the detailed investigations they conducted
before filing their respective complaints.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment on January 20.

Garbaccio is represented by Scott Lempert, --
slempert@cohenmilsten.com -- Karen L. Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilsten.com -- Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilsten.com --  and Kira L. Hettinger --
khettinger@cohenmilsten.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC and Laura R. Gerber -- lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn
Lincoln Sarko -- llincoln@kellerrohrback.com -- Havila C. Unrein -
- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com --  and Ron Kilgard --
rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback LLP.

Barker and her co-plaintiffs are represented by Edward W. Ciolko,
-- eciolko@ktmc.com --  David A. Bocian -- dbocian@ktmc.com --
Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- and Julie Siebert-Johnson
-- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and
Robert A. Izard, Mark P. Kindall and Doug Needham of Izard Kindall
& Raabe LLP.

St. Joseph's is represented by David R. Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com
-- and Christopher S. Mayer -- cmayer@mccarter.com -- of McCarter
& English LLP and Stacey Cerrone -- scerrone@proskauer.com --
Lindsey Chopin -- lchopin@proskauer.com --  and Howard Shapiro --
howshapiro@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is Garbaccio v. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center
and subsidiaries et al., case number 2:16-cv-02740, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


STATE FARM: Collision Repairers Want Stay in RICO Case Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Huetter, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that
collision repairers in Pennsylvania and North Carolina have asked
a Florida federal judge to reconsider a late December order
staying their RICO case against some of the the nation's largest
auto insurers.

Middle District of Florida Judge Gregory Presnell on Dec. 22,
2016, stayed five cases from various states which a federal panel
had consolidated before his court.

"Resolution of the cases on appeal will likely resolve the
antitrust claims in these cases," Judge Presnell wrote.  "In the
interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will stay further
proceedings in these five cases until the appeals are resolved."

However, while all five cases all involve collision repairers
suing insurers for allegedly trying to artificially deflate auto
body compensation and interfering with repairer businesses, the
Crawford's Auto Center and K&M Collision v. State Farm et al case
takes a different legal approach than the other four lawsuits -- a
point made by its plaintiffs in their motion on Jan. 19.

"Respectfully, there is no basis to stay or administratively close
this case (the "RICO Class Action") because it indisputably
concerns different claims and rests on a different foundation than
the other cases filed in this MDL that are now on appeal," the
motion states.  "Accordingly, there are no judicial efficiencies
to be achieved relating to the RICO Class Action by awaiting
resolution of the appeals pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals."

The Crawford lawsuit filed through the law firm of Bailey &
Glasser reads differently than the other stayed cases, which are
virtually identical in construction to most of the appealed
lawsuits and all handled by Eaves Law Firm.

The Crawford shops haven't appealed anything to the Eleventh
Circuit, and while their case alleges conspiracies to improperly
deflate repair bills, it does so using the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act instead of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. Besides accusing insurers of RICO violations, it also alleges
fraud and unjust enrichment.

The other four cases (and others on appeal before the Eleventh
Circuit) allege combinations of price-fixing, boycott (both
Sherman Antitrust Act violations), tortious interference, unjust
enrichment, quantum meruit and state insurance-related laws.

The word "antitrust" only appears once in the Crawford case -- in
a quote attributed to State Farm warning shops not to act in an
antitrust-violating manner.

"The RICO Class Action contains no 'antitrust claims'," the motion
states.  "Nor does the RICO Class Action allege conspiratorial
conduct by all of the named defendant insurers (i.e., one
industry-wide conspiracy) effectuating restraint of trade.
Accordingly, the basis given by the Court for including the RICO
Class Action in the Order simply does not apply to this case, and
the Court should therefore dissolve the stay as to the RICO Class
Action and reopen the case."

The Crawford case alleges separate RICO counts for each defendant
insurer (It also accuses various information providers as
conspirators, but doesn't name them as defendants.), while the
other cases accuse the collective defendants in the price-fixing
and boycott charges.

"Plaintiffs' RICO Class Action alleges separate and distinct
enterprises by which the Defendant Insurers and their exclusive
Information Provider partners collaborate to systematically
defraud collision repair professionals like Plaintiffs and the
proposed classes, the same repair professionals that purchase
collision estimating systems from the Information Providers and
rely on the Information Providers as the purported industry
neutral guidepost," the motion states.  ". . . In contrast to the
cases filed by the Eaves Firm, Plaintiffs have not alleged
antitrust claims.  Nor do Plaintiffs allege an overarching,
industry-wide conspiracy to restrain trade between and among all
of the defendant insurers.  By the same token, none of the cases
filed by the Eaves Firm rest upon the complicit conduct of the
Information Providers.  There are no antitrust claims in this case
which will or can be resolved by the pending appeals."

Hopefully, the shop's motion makes Judge Presnell take a closer
look at the litigation, gleaning both a better grasp of DRP rates
versus door rates -- a crucial distinction missed in an earlier
dismissal of Crawford without prejudice -- but also not lumping it
in with a series of cases he's been skeptical of in the past.

The appealed cases are still pending before the Eleventh Circuit.
They ask the appellate court to weigh in on just how detailed a
federal lawsuit needs to be, with the Eaves firm and the collision
repairer plaintiffs arguing that Judge Presnell has been applying
too harsh of an standard when deciding if cases should survive a
motion to dismiss.


SUSHIYA ON SUNSET: Violates Cal. Labor Code, Santiago Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Santiago, et al., Plaintiffs v. Sushiya On Sunset, St.
Trop Inc., Eun Ta Jho, Choy "Doe", DOV Abitbol and Does 1 to 20,
Defendants, Case No. BC646302 (Cal. Sup. Ct., January 10, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of California's
labor laws.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay timely earned
wages during employment and upon separation of employment, and
breached oral and implied contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sandra H. Castro, Esq.
   Law Offices of Sandra H. Castro, Inc
   3200 Inland Empire Blvd., Ste. 265
   Ontario, CA 91764
   Tel: (909) 989-2700
   Fax: (909) 989-2733
   Email: castro@lawservicesonline.com


SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL: Flood Sues Over Firm Sale to CEO Zhang
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR FLOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., LIANG ZHANG,
JINRONG CHEN, LEI LIN, YALIN WU, XIUNG MENG, BEAMS POWER MERGER
SUB LIMITED, and HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2017-0032- (Del. Ch., January 17, 2017), is a stockholder suit
that seeks remedy in connection with the planned acquisition of
Synutra by Mr. Liang Zhang, the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and Mr. Zhang's spouse, Ms. Xiuqing Meng, in a
going-private transaction.  Mr. Zhang is Synutra's controlling
stockholder, and the Proposed Buyout is allegedly not fair in
process or price to Synutra's minority common stockholders.

SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL, INC. is an infant formula company in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290


TAKATA CORP: $1BB Settlement Won't Impact Air Bag Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Takata Corp.'s $1 billion settlement with the U.S. government over
its defective air bags will not hinder the nationwide class action
against the company and several automakers, lead plaintiffs
counsel in the Miami-based civil case said.

As part of the settlement announced on Jan. 13, Takata agreed to
plead guilty to wire fraud in Detroit federal court and to pay
$850 million to automakers affected by air bag recalls, $125
million to injured victims and a $25 million fine.  The company
will retain a compliance monitor for three years, said U.S.
Attorney Barbara McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan.
The court has appointed Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg as
special master to oversee the restitution.  Mr. Feinberg, with the
Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, has administered compensation
funds for victims of Agent Orange, 9/11 and the BP oil spill.

An indictment was also unsealed against three former executives of
the Japanese company on wire fraud and conspiracy charges for
allegedly concealing the air bags' defect from automakers.
"For more than a decade, Takata repeatedly and systematically
falsified critical test data related to the safety of its
products, putting profits and production schedules ahead of
safety," said Andrew Weissmann, chief of the U.S. Department of
Justice's criminal fraud section.

A faulty inflator found in some Takata air bags caused the safety
devices to explode when they deployed, expelling shrapnel into the
car.  The defect was linked to 16 deaths and more than 180
injuries, bringing about the largest automotive recall in U.S.
history.

Takata admitted as part of the criminal settlement that it knew in
2000, a few years after it began developing the air bag inflators,
that some of them had ruptured during testing and did not meet
automakers' specifications.  The company submitted false reports
that concealed the problem from Takata customers, according to the
admissions.

The executives and other employees involved in falsifying the data
were not disciplined until 2015, years after senior executives
knew about the fraud, according to the Department of Justice.

"Reaching this agreement is a major step towards resolving the
airbag inflator issue and a key milestone in the ongoing process
to secure investment in Takata," Takata Chairman and CEO Shigehisa
Takada said.  "Takata deeply regrets the circumstances that have
led to this situation and remains fully committed to being part of
the solution.  We have taken aggressive actions to address past
reporting lapses and will continue to work closely with regulators
and our automotive customers to address the ongoing recalls and
implement new technologies that advance vehicle safety, prevent
injuries and save lives."

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno presides over the civil
litigation in Miami federal court and could decide to admit the
guilty plea as evidence in the civil proceeding, bolstering the
plaintiffs' case against Takata.

Peter Prieto, a Podhurst Orseck partner in Miami, leads the
plaintiffs' legal team in the multidistrict litigation against
Takata and automakers BMW, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan,
Subaru and Toyota.  The case includes personal injury claims and a
separate set of economic loss claims on behalf of owners of cars
subject to the recall.

"Takata's criminal guilty plea comes as no surprise and was
expected," Mr. Prieto said.  "The guilty plea also will have no
adverse impact on the civil cases against the automakers in the
MDL because the automakers have separate and independent civil
liability to their consumers who bought their cars not from Takata
but from the automakers, all of whom represented that their cars
were safe."

Mr. Prieto also claims that no matter what Takata told the
automakers, they knew the air bags were dangerous because the
inflators used a volatile compound, ammonium nitrate, as a
propellant.  The defense has argued humidity and a press used in
the manufacturing process were more to blame for air bag ruptures
than the chemical.

Reports that Takata is considering filing for bankruptcy in the
U.S. concern the plaintiffs, since the claims against Takata could
be stayed in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding.

"Everyone wants Takata to survive and not file for bankruptcy, but
it's something beyond our control," Mr. Prieto said.

The government's investigation of Takata had not impeded discovery
in the case, although the Jan. 13 news could mean some Takata
employees invoke their Fifth Amendment right during future
depositions, he said.

The multidistrict litigation plaintiffs are in the midst of
discovery related to all eight defendants, and no trial date has
yet been set.


TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Class Action Moved to New York
----------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a consolidated securities class action lawsuit.

On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal
securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and two of
its former officers (one of which was also a director of the
Company) asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf
of a putative class. The Complaint alleges that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including
with respect to disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal
controls and the Company's reliance on SunEdison.

An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former
officer and director of the Company were added as defendants.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for consolidated or coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

"While we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of
this proceeding, the Company believes each of the allegations in
this complaint are without merit and intends to contest these
allegations vigorously," the Company said.


TILLY'S INC: "Christiansen" Settled and Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that in the case, Kirstin
Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-
2013-139010, the named plaintiffs' individual claims have been
settled, and the entire case has been dismissed with prejudice.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. The
complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees."

"In June 2013, the court granted our motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
The parties completed class certification discovery and briefing,
and a hearing was held on August 13, 2015.

"On September 17, 2015, the court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification. In November 2015,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In October 2016, the
named plaintiffs' individual claims were settled, and the entire
case dismissed with prejudice."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
apparel, footwear and accessories.


TILLY'S INC: Settlement of "Rebolledo" Case Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the case, Maria
Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.;
World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013,
to add a claim for penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004."

"In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014,
we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties attended
a mediation proceeding and reached a settlement. The court granted
final approval of the settlement on November 10, 2016."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
apparel, footwear and accessories.


TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that in the case, Karina
Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC 548252, the court has granted parties'
settlement preliminary approval.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action and representative Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's
wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations,
and unfair competition law, among other things. The complaint
sought class certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint on December 3, 2014."

"We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015, denying all
allegations. We engaged in mediation in May 2016, and the parties
reached a resolution that was presented to the court for
preliminary approval on September 13, 2016. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on October 4, 2016, and
notice of the settlement was issued to class members."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
apparel, footwear and accessories.


TILLY'S INC: Court Dismissed Skylar Ward Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the Court has
entered a written order sustaining the Company's demurrer, and
dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action in the case, Skylar
Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC595405.

The Company said, "On September 1, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair
competition law.  Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation
of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay
reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims.  The
complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees."

"On June 21, 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's.  Specifically, the court
agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-
time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other
putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to
certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based.  At the
hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the
plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.

"The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2016, which
brought the same claims as her original complaint but added
various factual allegations.

"On August 5, 2016, we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's
amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended
complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's,
for the same reasons that the court granted our demurrer as to the
plaintiff's original complaint.

"A court hearing was held on the demurrer on October 26, 2016, and
on November 21, 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining
our demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action
with prejudice. Plaintiff may appeal the order to the California
Court of Appeal. We have defended this case vigorously and will
continue to do so."

Tillys is a destination specialty retailer of West Coast inspired
apparel, footwear and accessories.


TIME WARNER: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Gubala"
---------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee at Law 360 reports the Seventh Circuit on January 20
affirmed the dismissal of a Time Warner Cable Inc. subscriber's
proposed class action against the company for storing former
customers' personal information, saying the man had neither
alleged nor offered any evidence of concrete harm, citing Spokeo.

The three-judge appeals panel agreed with U.S. District Judge
Pamela Pepper of Wisconsin federal court that plaintiff Derek
Gubala had no standing to bring suit against Time Warner for
alleged violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act because
he had neither argued nor demonstrated tangible injury.

In its May 2016 Spokeo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found it
isn't enough to establish standing by simply claiming a statute
was violated; instead, a plaintiff must show they have suffered a
real, tangible harm as a result of the violation.

"Gubala's problem is that while he might well be able to prove a
violation of section 551, he has not alleged any plausible (even
if attenuated) risk of harm to himself from such a violation - any
risk substantial enough to be deemed 'concrete,'" wrote Circuit
Judge Richard Posner for the panel.

After withdrawing a claim for monetary damages when Time Warner
tried to push him into arbitration, Gubala sought injunctive
relief against the cable company, alleging that its practice of
keeping former customers' information such as date of birth,
address, phone number, social security number and credit number on
file violated the statute.

In its nine-page ruling, the appellate court pointed out that
Gubala never alleged a specific harm that resulted from this
retention practice, such as the leaking or giving away of the
information to cause financial or other injury to the proposed
class.

"In short, given the requirement of standing, Gubala can no more
sue than someone who, though he has never subscribed and means
never to subscribe to a cable company, nevertheless is outraged by
the thought that Time Warner and perhaps other cable companies are
violating a federal statute with apparent impunity," Judge Posner
wrote.

Gubala filed the suit in September 2015, claiming Time Warner held
onto customers' personal information after terminating their
contracts. After Time Warner asked Judge Pepper to move the case
to arbitration, as dictated by its customer agreements, Gubala
updated his complaint to remove the claim for monetary damages and
to seek an injunction barring Time Warner from keeping the
personal information.

After Judge Pepper granted Time Warner's motion to dismiss the
suit in June 2016, the putative class appealed to the Seventh
Circuit, arguing that Time Warner's violation of the cable
customers' rights to have their information destroyed was a
concrete injury to their privacy.

While the appeals court in Friday's order agreed that an alleged
violation of privacy is actionable, there was no evidence here
Time Warner had released the personal information or that it
planned to do so to create a cognizable harm.

The appeals court additionally noted that even if Gubala meant to
convey he has a fear Time Warner would one day release his
personal information, he had not alleged that so as to warrant
reviving his suit.

The parties didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on
January 20.

Circuit Judges Richard Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook and Diane S.
Sykes sat on the panel.

Time Warner is represented by Bryan A. Merryman --
bmerryman@whitecase.com  -- and Julian A. Lamm --
jlamm@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP.

Gubala and the putative class are represented by Joseph J. Siprut
-- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC.

The case is Derek Gubala v. Time Warner Cable Inc., case number
16-2613, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


TODISCO SERVICES: Faces "Lemay" Suit Over Unpaid OT Work
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Lemay, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Todisco Services, Inc. and Pasquale Todisco III,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10060 (D. Mass., January 12, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Massachusetts Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Hillary Schwab, Esq.
   Brant Casavant, Esq.
   FAIR WORK, P.C.
   192 South Street, Suite 450
   Boston, MA 02111
   Tel: (617) 607-3260
   Fax: (617) 488-2261
   Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
          brant@fairworklaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Canadian Taxi Drivers' Class Action Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that taxi companies and drivers across
Quebec are claiming a first victory in their battle against Uber
after a judge on Jan. 23 authorized their class action against the
ride-hailing company.

The taxi industry is seeking "hundreds of millions" against the
U.S.-based firm, said Marc-Antoine Cloutier, a lawyer representing
drivers, owners and their union.

"Uber has made revenues nosedive for drivers and owners of taxis
and limousines across Quebec," Mr. Cloutier alleged.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Wilson Jean-Paul, a taxi owner
and spokesman for the union representing 4,000 drivers in Quebec.

Mr. Cloutier said the lawsuit covers all taxi and limousine
companies and drivers working in Montreal, its south and north
shore, and in the Quebec City area.

The Quebec government recently signed a pilot project with Uber
allowing the company to operate in the province legally under
strict conditions.

Taxi companies previously tried to have a judge impose an
injunction against the pilot project but failed.

Mr. Cloutier said aside from the class action, the taxi industry
is taking the government to court to in order to have the
agreement signed with Uber declared illegal.

Uber Canada spokesman Jean-Christophe de Le Rue said the company
is aware of the Jan. 23 court ruling.

"For our part," he said, "we are focusing our energies on
providing quality service to Quebecers in line with the parameters
of the pilot project regulating ridesharing within the province."


ULTIMATE CLASS: "Korcz" Suit Alleges Violation of N.Y. Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Korcz, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ultimate Class Limousine Inc., Matthew
Silver and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
600246/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 10, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of New York's labor laws.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to provide overtime
compensation in excess of 40 hours per week, failed to provide a
statement to employees with every payment of wages accurately
listing hours worked, rates, paid, gross wages, allowances, if
any, claimed as part of the minimum wage deductions and net wages
and failed to remit gratuities intended for employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNCLE CHUCK'S: Notaro Alleges Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Anthony Notaro, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Uncle Chuck's Corporation d/b/a Uncle
Chuck's Sports Bar and Grill, Marvin Feilhardt, an individual and
Karen Feilhardt, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00176-LDW-SIL (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for non-payment of wages and overtime pay pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law
(NYLL).

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant willfully and
intentionally chose not to abide the requirement to pay Plaintiff
and FLSA Plaintiffs for spread of hours, overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David H. Rosenberg, Esq.
   THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. ROSENBERG, P.C.
   170 Old Country Road, Suite 600
   Mineola, NY 11501
   Tel: (516) 741-0300
   Fax: (516) 385-4848
   Email: drosenberg@employeelawny.com

          - and -

   Jesse Rose, Esq.
   THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
   31-09 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
   Astoria, NY 11102
   Tel: (718) 989-1864
   Cell: (347) 709-2584
   Fax: (917) 831-4595
   Email: JRose@TheRoseLawGroup.com


UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Microsoft's Data Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Bellisle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the U.S. Justice Department asked a judge on Jan. 23 to throw out
a lawsuit from Microsoft and keep a law that prohibits technology
companies from telling customers when the government demands their
electronic data.

Microsoft says its customers have a constitutional right to know
when the government collects their private information during
criminal investigations.  The Electronic Communications Privacy
Act compels companies to divulge the data and keep the move
secret, violating the company's First Amendment right to speak
with its customers, according to its complaint filed last year.

"People need to get notice when the government comes knocking at
the door to seize all that stuff that historically would have been
stored in a file cabinet," Microsoft lawyer Stephen Rummage told
U.S. District Judge James Robart.

Companies including Apple, Twitter and Amazon as well as media
outlets such as The Associated Press, the Seattle Times and
Washington Post filed court briefs supporting Microsoft.

In its filing, Apple said it received more than 1,000 secret
warrants from law enforcement agencies for iCloud data during the
last six months of 2015.  Microsoft said the government made 2,576
demands for data over an 18-month period before April 2016, the
most recent numbers available, and about 68 percent of those had
no end date.

Eric Soskin, a Justice Department lawyer, said the federal
government has an interest in keeping criminal investigations
confidential and customers often eventually learn about the data
demands when charges are filed.

Jennie Kneedler, another government lawyer, told the judge that
Microsoft does not have the legal standing to argue for its
customers' Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against
unreasonable searches and seizures.  Only the customers can
challenge perceived violations of those rights, she said.

That creates a catch-22, Mr. Rummage said.  The company is not
allowed to tell customers about the warrants, so they can't file
objections.

"Those people can't protect their rights," he said.

Judge Robart said he would issue a ruling later but that the law
troubled him for several reasons.

"I'm disturbed by the idea that you can have an invasion of rights
or privacy without ever disclosing it," he said. "Microsoft
customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content
they have stored."

Historically, people would keep their confidential information,
such as health and tax records and love letters, in file cabinets
or storage lockers, said Mr. Rummage, the Microsoft attorney.  If
the government secured a warrant to collect that information, the
person would know, he said.

But now that data is stored on the cloud online, the government is
targeting the tech companies that control that information, Mr.
Rummage said.  But the gag order in the law keeps the process
unfairly secret.

Mr. Soskin, representing the government, said the system has legal
protections: Magistrates approve the warrants before they are
served.

That process lacks balance, Mr. Rummage said, because warrants are
written by the government without defendant input, witnesses or
debate.  The law only requires that the government has "a reason
to believe" disclosure could hinder an investigation.

"We're talking about core, protected Fourth Amendment information
that has been protected since the founding," he said.


VENDOMATIC INC: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HARRISON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VENDOMATIC, INC., a Maryland Corporation, and
ROBERT WALIZER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00331
(S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2017), alleges that Defendants do not pay
"Territory Managers" any overtime premiums whatsoever in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Vendomatic, Inc. is a full service bulk vending machine operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) WORKERS
     Fax: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


VISA: Court Upholds Decision on Fee Sharing Agreement Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian N. Radnoff, Esq. -- bradnoff@lerners.ca -- of Lerners, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal
recently released the appeal decision in the case in Bancroft-
Snell v Visa, 2015 ONSC 7275 (2016 ONCA 896).

In Bancroft, a class action involving allegedly improper credit
card merchant fees, Justice Perell, on a motion to approve counsel
fees, approved the contingency fee sought by class counsel.
However, he refused to give effect to a fee sharing agreement with
other counsel or to allow class counsel to pay any money in
respect of the fee sharing agreement, even funds not coming from
the class action settlement.  The fee sharing agreement had been
reached between class counsel and the Merchant Law Group ("MLG")
after a mediation with a judge to settle a carriage dispute in
Saskatchewan and Alberta.  The resolution of the carriage dispute
permitted a potential settlement in the action to proceed.  Perell
J.'s decision with respect to his refusal to approve the fee
sharing agreement was appealed.

The Court of Appeal largely upheld Perell J.'s decision.  The
Court held that Perell J. was correct in his finding that the fee
sharing agreement was reviewable on a motion to approve counsel
fees and that it was within a court's authority to reject the
arrangement.  The Court of Appeal held that Perell J.'s decision
to reject the fee sharing agreement was discretionary and that his
exercise of discretion in this case was reasonable. The Court of
Appeal agreed that resolving the carriage dispute was not of
benefit to the class and, therefore, was not a cost that should be
imposed on the class.  It was a cost of doing business for class
counsel.  However, the Court found that Perell J. had erred in
holding that the fee sharing agreement was otherwise unenforceable
and that class counsel could not pay MLG regardless of the source.
The fee could be paid so long as any payment from the class action
was not the source of the funds.

There are two important implications of the Court of Appeal's
decision.  First, it is unlikely any court in Ontario would
approve compensation to class counsel from class members in
respect of or arising out of a carriage dispute.  Even if a
retainer agreement permitted compensation for carriage disputes,
the court would likely not enforce it.  The Court of Appeal held
that class members should not have to pay to settle carriage
disputes despite the fact that they often arise in Canada's multi-
jurisdictional constitutional landscape.  Carriage disputes, in
the Court's view, are a business expense and should be borne by
the law firms seeking to obtain carriage.  Class counsel could try
to increase the contingency fee sought to compensate for these
costs, but the Court must still approve counsel's fee and will not
approve what appear to be high fees. Therefore, class counsel
likely has no effective options to try to shift this cost to the
class.  At best, class counsel may be able to obtain some
compensation for the cost of carriage disputes from opposing
counsel, but such compensation will normally be partial at best.

Second, it is likely that there will be more contested carriage
disputes since class counsel can not necessarily agree to share a
portion of their fee with rival counsel to resolve such disputes.
An increase in contested carriage disputes may be detrimental to
class members as these disputes will slow class action litigation
and lengthen the time it takes class members to receive
compensation.  Bancroft is a good example of how settlement
agreements can be reached more expeditiously once carriage
disputes are settled.  In Bancroft, a settlement agreement was
reached with Bank of America shortly after carriage was settled.
It is understandable that the Court does not want class members to
pay for work that does not advance the litigation.  However, it is
arguable that fee sharing arrangements do advance litigation given
the current multi-jurisdictional class action landscape.

Notably, the fee sharing agreement that Ontario rejected was
approved in Saskatchewan and Quebec.  Given the inconsistent
decisions and the effect this decision will no doubt have on class
action practice, this may be an appropriate area for the Supreme
Court to provide guidance.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: WSU's Peter Henning Comments on Criminal Pleas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that attitude is everything.  That's the message the U.S.
Department of Justice sent when it announced criminal plea deals
involving billions of dollars paid by Takata Corp. and Volkswagen
AG, according to Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State
University Law School, who specializes in white-collar crime. Both
companies resisted allegations that they had defective products.
Such enforcement is unlikely to change under President-elect
Donald Trump, said Henning, who spoke to ALM about what's in store
for future corporate wrongdoers.

Here's some of the highlights:

Q: The dollar figures in both cases -- $1 billion and $4.3 billion
-- are more than what General Motors paid over its ignition switch
defect. Why were the payments much higher this time around,
particularly in cases in which fewer people died or were injured?

Peter Henning: A major part for Volkswagen was the company's
cooperation and its attitude.  Volkswagen really got under the
skin of the Justice Department.  If you were to create a template
of how not to respond to a Justice Department investigation, look
at what Volkswagen did.  They could not have handled this any
worse if they tried.  For Takata, they were down the line "We
didn't do anything wrong," and then the stuff comes out about
hiding and changing test results.  That is disastrous.  What GM
did was stupid. But they certainly didn't actively hide it. And
notice no individuals were charged.

Q: Three executives at Takata and six at Volkswagen were indicted.
Could individual indictments be something corporations should
expect going forward?

A: The Justice Department wants more individuals named.  They want
to pursue cases against more than just the low-level engineer and
I doubt that will change under [Attorney General nominee Sen.
Jeff] Sessions.  He's pretty aggressive.

Q: None of the executives who were charged is from the United
States, though one Volkswagen official was arrested while
traveling in Florida.  How does that affect the government's
ability to pursue charges against them?

A: In Germany, it's against their constitution to extradite their
citizens to other countries.  We may never see the other five in
the United States.  You can name people, but if you never can
convict them, there's a question of how effective the prosecution
is.  That's why the guy in Florida they got at the airport heading
home.  Will Japan extradite a corporate executive? I think that's
a very open question.  These people are living out there knowing
they've been charged with a crime in the U.S., but maybe they
shrug their shoulders and say, "Fine."

Q: Both of the criminal pleas came ahead of Trump's inauguration.
Why?

A: It wasn't motivated so much by a concern that somehow the new
administration would drop the cases.  For the Justice Department
leadership, both in Washington and in Detroit, it was a way for
them to get closure on significant cases.  In a sense, they wanted
the credit. This was done on their watch.  They wanted it resolved
on their watch.

Q: You've said these high-dollar criminal settlements aren't
ideological.  Do you expect them to continue under Trump?

A: To the extent you get that kind of egregious misconduct, I
don't see a change in administration having much of an effect.  As
much as we might hear talk about deregulation and a lighter hand
on enforcement, once there is a corporate scandal in the news, the
government's response is to come down hard.  And I think that's
going to be true, Republican or Democrat.


VOLVO CARS: Installed Defective Rear Cameras, Obergfell Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Obergfell and Jacquelyn Obergfell, Plaintiffs, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volvo Cars of
North America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00161 (C.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2017), is brought on behalf of all the current or
former owners of a Volvo-branded car, with defect rear camera.

Defendant Volvo Cars of North America, LLC conducts substantial
business within New Jersey and throughout the United States
through the marketing, distribution, and sale of Volvo-branded
vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Markos, Esq.
   Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC
   Woodland Falls Corporate Center
   210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
   Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1163
   Tel: 856-667-0500
   Fax: 856-667-513
   Email: cmarkos@wcblegal.com

        - and -

   Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
   Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC
   1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: 215-557-0099
   Fax: 215-557-0673
   Email: mquirk@wcblegal.com

        - and -

   Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
   Martin Woodward, Esq.
   Stanley Law Group
   6116 N. Central Expwy., Suite 1500
   Dallas, TX 75206
   Tel: 214-443-4300
   Fax: 214-443-0358
   Email: marcstanley@mac.com
          mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

        - and -

   Dean Gresham, Esq.
   STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
   12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
   Dallas, TX 75230
   Tel: 972-387-4040
   Fax: 972-387-4041
   Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Johnson" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. The case is entitled as Boyd Johnson, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60116-DPG (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 18, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

Wal-Mart Stores is an American multinational retailing corporation
that operates as a chain of hypermarkets, discount department
stores and grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yechezkel Rodal, Esq.
          Rodal Law, P.A.
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 203
          Dania Beach, FL 33312
          Telephone: (786) 763 2551
          Facsimile: (954) 272 7587
          E-mail: chezky@rodallaw.com

WALMART: Class Members to Receive Settlement Notice
---------------------------------------------------
Outten & Golden LLP disclosed that on January 23, 2017, notice
will be provided to class members in a $7.5 million settlement
that has been reached with Walmart and Sam's Club (together
"Walmart") in a class action lawsuit that challenged the lack of
health insurance benefits for the same-sex spouses of associates
between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 (the "Settlement
Class Period").  To receive payments under the Settlement,
Settlement Class Members must file claims with the Settlement
Administrator no later than March 20, 2017.

On December 22, 2016, the District Court presiding over the class
action lawsuit granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, and
directed the parties to send notice to Settlement Class Members so
that they can learn about the Settlement and have the opportunity
to submit claims to receive payments.

Walmart voluntarily began making the same Health Insurance
benefits that it provides to opposite-sex spouses of its
associates available to same-sex spouses of its associates as of
January 1, 2014.  Walmart denies it did anything wrong.  The Court
did not decide in favor of Plaintiff or Walmart.  Instead, both
sides agreed to a settlement.

"Settlement Class Members" include those individuals who, during
the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 Settlement Class Period,
(1) worked at Walmart or Sam's Club in the United States or Puerto
Rico; (2) were legally married to a same-sex spouse; and (3) would
have been eligible for spousal Health Insurance Benefits from
Walmart or Sam's Club but for the limitation on providing spousal
Health Insurance Benefits to same-sex spouses.

Under the Settlement, Walmart has agreed to pay $7.5 million into
a Settlement Fund.  Up to $3.5 million of the Settlement Fund will
be used to make payments to Settlement Class Members for certain
documented out-of-pocket healthcare and/or health insurance costs
incurred by their same-sex spouses during the Settlement Class
Period.  The remaining Settlement Fund, after deducting court-
approved attorneys' fees and expenses, a service award to the
Named Plaintiff, and claims administration costs, will be used to
make payments to Settlement Class Members who submit claims
calculated based on the number of months they would have been
eligible for spousal health insurance benefits during the
Settlement Class Period.  These "short form claimants" can receive
a pro-rata share of the remaining funds based on the number of
months they are eligible, up to $5,000 per year or up to $15,000
for the three year period. In addition, Walmart has committed to
treating same-sex and opposite-sex spouses equally in providing
health insurance benefits so long as to do so is consistent with
applicable law.

To get a payment, Settlement Class Members must fill out and send
in a Claim Form by March 20, 2017.  Claim Forms and complete
information about the Settlement are available at
www.WalmartSameSexSpouseBenefitsSettlement.com.

If Settlement Class Members do nothing, their rights will be
affected but they will not get a Settlement payment.  Any
Settlement Class Member who does not want to be legally bound by
the Settlement must exclude themselves from it by March 20, 2017.
Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves will not be
able to sue or continue to sue Walmart for any legal claim
resolved by this Settlement or released by the Settlement
Agreement.  Settlement Class Members who do not exclude themselves
may object and notify the Court that they or their lawyer intends
to appear at the Court's Fairness Hearing. Objections are due
March 20, 2017.  More information is available at
www.WalmartSameSexSpouseBenefitsSettlement.com.

Judge William Young will hold a final approval hearing in this
case (Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-12945-WGY) at
2:00 p.m. on May 11, 2017 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S.
Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.  At this hearing,
the Court will decide whether to approve: the Settlement; Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees (up to 25% of the Settlement
Fund) and costs; and $25,000 as a service award to the Class
Representative.  Settlement Class Members or their lawyers may
appear at the hearing at their own expense.

For more information visit
www.WalmartSameSexSpouseBenefitsSettlement.com or call 1-877-241-
7543


WESTERN REFINING: Shareholder Challenges Merger Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Love, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paul L. Foster, Sigmund L. Cornelius, L.
Frederick Francis, Robert J. Hassler, Brian J. Hogan, Jeff A.
Steven, Scott D. Waever, Western Refining, Inc., Tesoro
Corporation, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc. and Tahoe Merger Sub 2, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00008-KC (W.D. Tex., January 11,
2017), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

On November 16, 2016, Western and Tesoro entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which Tesoro will acquire all
outstanding shares of Western common stock.  Western stockholders
may elect to receive either $37.50 per share in cash or 0.4350
shares of Tesoro stock per Western stock.  Cash elections will be
subject to proration if cash elections are made in respect of more
than approximately 10.8 million Western Shares. Stock elections
are not subject to proration.

Plaintiff contends that the Proposed Transaction is the result of
a flawed, single-bidder process rife with conflicts of interest.
Not only will Western's officers and directors receive substantial
payouts as a result of the Proposed Transaction, but certain
members of the Board and management will continue employment with
the combined company.  Western's Chief Executive Officer and
Executive chairman will both became directors of Tesoro.
Moreover, the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc.
is also conflicted.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
   THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
   700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
   Houston, TX  77002
   Tel: (713) 227-7720
   Email: tbilek@bileklaw.com

        - and -

   Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   733 Summer Street, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171


WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Shomberg" Class Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Shomberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paul L. Foster, Sigmund L.
Cornelius, L. Frederick Francis, Robert J. Hassler, Brian J.
Hogan, Jeff A. Steven, Scott D. Waever, Western Refining, Inc.,
Tesoro Corporation, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc. and Tahoe Merger Sub
2, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00014 (W.D. Tex., January 12,
2017), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

On November 16, 2016, Western and Tesoro entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which Tesoro will acquire all
outstanding shares of Western common stock.  Western stockholders
may elect to receive either $37.50 per share in cash or 0.4350
shares of Tesoro stock per Western stock.  Cash elections will be
subject to proration if cash elections are made in respect of more
than approximately 10.8 million Western Shares. Stock elections
are not subject to proration.

The Plaintiff's alleged that the Defendants' proposed transaction
does not provide adequate value to stockholder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
   THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
   700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
   Houston, TX  77002
   Tel: (713) 227-7720
   Email: tbilek@bileklaw.com

        - and -

   Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
   Brower Piven, APC
   475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
   New York, NY
   Tel: (212) 501-9000


WINDSOR & TECUMSEH: Allowed to See List of Bingo Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Schmidt, writing for Windsor Star, reports that Windsor and
Tecumseh should be allowed to see the names of the charities that
have opted out of suing them for millions of dollars in a bingo
class-action lawsuit, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs argued in a hearing last month that
there was "a very rational and very reasonable fear over what the
community will do" if that list was divulged.

But Justice Terry Patterson disagreed.

"In my opinion there is insufficient evidence to establish that
there is a serious threat to commercial interest of the
plaintiffs," Justice Patterson wrote in a seven-page ruling.

A lawyer for the two municipalities had argued it was "entirely
speculative" that having their names known would negatively impact
fundraising activities.

Justice Patterson pointed out that bingos have been continuously
run since the lawsuit began in 2008.

"I have not been provided any evidence that there has been
difficulty with any organization continuing their bingo
activities," he wrote.

The list of all the hundreds of potential members of the class
action is available to the public, but a court-imposed protection
order prohibited the defence lawyers from divulging to their
clients how many or which of those parties decided to opt out of
the lawsuit.

During a period last year overseen by the court, Windsor and
Tecumseh launched a multimedia campaign urging community members,
who were automatically included in the lawsuit, to drop out in the
interests of their fellow taxpayers.

While Justice Patterson lifted his temporary protection order, a
lawyer involved in the lengthy and expensive legal action told the
Star the opt-out list remains in effect sealed as this latest
ruling is being appealed.

"The open court principle outweighs the potential class members
request for confidentiality," Justice Patterson wrote.

Regardless of the plaintiffs' desire for anonymity, the judge
added they'll eventually be named: "The time will come when the
individuals or organizations who wish to make a claim must be
identified."

Losing the lawsuit could mean a payout by the municipalities,
including interest, of $80 million or more.  That figure, which
would not be covered by insurers, represents a fifth of the city's
annual tax levy.

The central issue in the biggest class-action suit to ever hit
Windsor and Tecumseh is whether the municipalities charged more
than what it cost to administer charity bingo licences going back
many years, in essence creating an illegal tax.

The ALS Society of Essex County, the Belle River District Minor
Hockey Association and Essex County Dancers are the named
plaintiffs in the class action.


ZOOMER INC: Exploits Consumer Data from Partners, Hardesty Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Hardesty, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zoomer, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2017-CH-00349 (Cirt. Ct. Ill., January 10, 2017), seeks damages
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff assert that Defendant was sending unauthorized and
unwanted text message to Plaintiff's and the Class's cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.

In order to develop a nationwide presence and establish its
dominance in the $302 billion food delivery market, Zoomer
exploits the consumer data that its restaurant partners entrust it
with by conducting a nationwide automated text messaging campaign
promoting its mobile application, the suit says.

Defendant Zoomer provides delivery services for its restaurant
partners across the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
   EDELSON PC
   350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
   Chicago, IL 60654
   Tel: 312-589-6370
   Fax: 312-589-6378
   Email: brichman@edelson.com


* 9th Cir. Rejects Ascertainability as Class Cert. Requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Reynolds, Esq. -- JReynolds@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that a potent weapon for defending against class actions
is the requirement that class members be "ascertainable."  Circuit
courts phrase this requirement differently, but at bottom, it is
two-fold: (1) the class must be objectively defined and (2) the
court must be able to identify class members in an
administratively feasible way. See, e.g., Brecher v. Republic of
Argentina, 806 F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2015); Karhu v. Vital Pharm.,
Inc., 621 F. App'x 945, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2015); EQT Prod. Co. v.
Adair, 764 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2014); Carrera v. Bayer Corp.,
727 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir. 2013).

The ascertainability requirement has been particularly important
in consumer class actions.  Where a class representative attempts
to define a class based solely on the purchase of a low-cost
product -- such as a diet supplement (Carrera and Karhu) -- a
defendant can readily cry foul.  How can the defendant be sure
that absent class members actually purchased the product?
Consumers typically don't keep grocery receipts and are unlikely
to remember the details about an otherwise routine purchase of a
low-cost product.  While members of a consumer class could submit
affidavits swearing that they purchased the product at issue, this
is viewed as an administratively infeasible way to determine class
membership.  Because a defendant has the right to challenge each
claimant's class membership, this would devolve into a "series of
mini-trials just to evaluate the threshold issue of which
[persons] are class members." Karhu, 621 F. App'x at 949; see also
Carrera, 727 F.3d at 307 ("A plaintiff does not satisfy the
ascertainability requirement if individualized fact-finding or
mini-trials will be required to prove class membership.").

This is exactly what ConAgra argued in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., No. 15-55727, 2017 WL 24618 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017).
Plaintiffs essentially sought to define their class as all persons
who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oils labeled "100% Natural" --
a label Plaintiffs claim is false or misleading because the
product contains bioengineered ingredients.  ConAgra, which
markets and sells the product, argued that the district court
erred by not requiring Plaintiffs to proffer a reliable way to
identify class members.  Again, "consumers do not generally save
grocery receipts and are unlikely to remember details about
individual purchases of a low-cost product like cooking oil." Id.
at *3.  The Ninth Circuit readily dismissed ConAgra's argument,
refusing to even use the term "ascertainability." Id. at *2 n.3.
Instead, the Ninth Circuit focused only on the second portion of
the ascertainability requirement: whether class representatives
must demonstrate an administratively feasible way to identify
class members. Id. at *3 n.4. After employing the rules of
statutory construction, the Ninth Circuit held that "the language
of Rule 23 does not impose a freestanding administrative
feasibility prerequisite to class certification." Id. at *4.

After its interpretation of Rule 23, the Ninth Circuit spent the
remainder of its opinion reviewing and rejecting the reasons the
Third Circuit has proffered for requiring that class members be
identified in an administratively feasible manner.  In doing so,
the Ninth Circuit joined the likes of the Sixth, Seventh, and
Eighth Circuits, which have all criticized the Third Circuit's
reasoning for such a requirement. See, e.g., Sandusky Wellness
Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992, 996-97 (8th Cir.
2016); Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 657-58 (7th
Cir. 2015); Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497, 525 (6th
Cir. 2015).  The Seventh and Eighth Circuits in particular have
characterized the Third Circuit's approach as a "heightened"
ascertainability requirement. Sandusky, 821 F.3d at 996; Mullins,
795 F.3d at 661-62.

At bottom, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the factors enumerated
in Rule 23 "already address" the policy concerns underlying any
"separate administrative feasibility requirement." 2017 WL 24618,
at *1.  The Ninth Circuit leaned heavily on one factor in
particular: Rule 23(b)(3)(D), "the likely difficulties in managing
a class action."  This is one of the four factors courts should
consider in determining whether a class action is the superior
vehicle for adjudicating the controversy.  By invoking the
superiority requirement--which entails a "comparative assessment
of the costs and benefits of class adjudication, including the
availability of 'other methods' for resolving the controversy" --
the Ninth Circuit appears to be instructing courts to assess any
potential administrative burdens alongside and compared to any
potential benefits of using the class action vehicle. 2017 WL
24618, at *6.

This may be the upside of the opinion. The Ninth Circuit clearly
had the low-value consumer class action in mind, noting there is
no "realistic alternative to class treatment" for a class action
involving "inexpensive consumer goods." Id. Therefore, the Ninth
Circuit might have less tolerance for administrative burdens
related to identifying class members outside of thelow-value
consumer class action context.  Moving forward, a defendant should
(1) consider framing arguments regarding these administrative
burdens under the superiority requirement and (2) pay close
attention to how other factors used to assess superiority might
impact a court's tolerance of these burdens.

Takeaway: The Ninth Circuit joins the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth
Circuits in disposing of the "heightened" ascertainability
requirement.  If a defendant must defend a class action in the
Ninth Circuit, this is all the more reason to consider early
defenses such as personal jurisdiction.  But to the extent these
defenses are unavailable, a defendant must be careful to frame an
argument based upon potential administrative burdens in such a way
that the argument will be recognized by the courts in the Ninth
Circuit.


* Court Mandates Disclosure of Third-Party Class Action Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 23
announced a new rule requiring the automatic disclosure of third-
party funding agreements in proposed class-action lawsuits,
walking back from an earlier proposal for broader transparency
requirements.

The rule change, which was made through an amendment to the
standing orders for all judges at the court, is likely to have
limited ramifications for major litigation funders in the United
States, including Burford Capital and Bentham IMF, which typically
do not fund class-action lawsuits.

"It really doesn't impact us at all," said Matthew Harrison, an
investment manager and head of Bentham's office in San Francisco.
"I think the rationale is probably to assist the judges in
determining settlement of class actions . . . or figure out if a
funder is taking money from a class."

While limited in scope, the rule is still groundbreaking: No U.S.
district court has yet adopted a rule requiring the automatic
disclosure of funding agreements of any kind, according to
observers of the industry.

Most state bar rules prohibit attorneys from splitting fees with
nonlawyers, making it difficult for investors to take a stake in
class litigation.  Still, some funders do bankroll class actions.
Last August, it was disclosed that Therium, a litigation finance
firm based in the U.K., had invested $1.7 million a class action
against Chevron that was pending in the Northern District of
California.

In a statement, a Burford representative said class and collective
actions represent a small part of the firm's business and the
litigation funding industry.

"[W]e do not anticipate any hardship as a result of the rule, and
we think the court ultimately will learn that the use of funding
(whether from a bank or specialty provider) for law firms in
connection with those types of cases is fairly commonplace," the
Burford statement continued.

The court's Civil Rules Committee, chaired by Judge Richard
Seeborg, had proposed a broader rule that would have required the
automatic disclosure of funding agreements in any matter before
the court.  Burford and Bentham opposed the proposal, arguing that
it would invite lengthy and expensive discovery fights.
Lynn Fuller, a spokeswoman for the court, said in an email that
the changes were made in a recent judges' meeting, acting upon the
recommendations of the rules committee.  The changes were posted
on the court's website on Jan. 23 and amend the section of the
standing orders for all judges that guides normal disclosures of
non-parties with an interest in a case. It reads that "in any
proposed class, collective or representative action, the required
disclosure includes any person or entity that is funding the
prosecution of any claim or counterclaim."

The development is an incremental victory for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which has generally opposed third-party funding and
called for greater transparency.  Lisa Rickard, president of
Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, had earlier called for the
adoption of the original Northern District proposal, saying it
"would be a major step in the right direction."

Justin Hakes, a spokesman for the chamber, said he was not
immediately able to comment on the new rule.


* Mandatory Arbitration Clauses to Face Challenges
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Olsan, Daryn Rush and White and Williams' Zachary Roth,
writing for The Legal Intelligencer, report that attorneys
representing consumers have for many years sought to escape
mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts, arguing that the
arbitration system inherently and unfairly favors corporate
defendants.  In the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act as well as
recent scandals, including revelations of fraud at Wells Fargo
Bank, policymakers and public interest advocates have joined the
fight against arbitration.  While the recent attacks have focused
on arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, arbitration clauses
in other types of contracts -- e.g., employment contracts and
insurance policies -- could also be challenged.  This article will
provide a brief summary of prior challenges to arbitration, review
recent developments adding fuel to the fire and examine what the
future of arbitration may look like.

Any dialogue about possible restrictions on pre-dispute
arbitration agreements must start with the impact the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., has on such
limitations.  The FAA, enacted in 1925, makes arbitration
agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for revocation of any
contract."  The FAA applies not only to federal courts; it also
precludes states from undermining the enforceability of
arbitration agreements, as in Southland v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1
(1984).

In the last five years or so, the U.S. Supreme Court has come down
strongly in favor of arbitration, reversing several lower court
decisions that restricted mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration
clauses.  In the first case, the court weighed in on California's
common-law rule that rendered class arbitration waivers in
consumer contracts unenforceable because they are unconscionable,
as in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
Acknowledging that the FAA's savings clause preserves generally
applicable contract defenses (like the unenforceability of
unconscionable contracts), the court ruled the FAA pre-empted the
common-law rule because that rule interferes with the arbitration
process and serves as an obstacle to the principal purpose of the
FAA, namely to "ensure that private arbitration agreements are
enforced according to their terms" so as to afford private parties
"efficient, stream-lined procedures" for resolving their disputes.
Two years later, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant , 133 S.Ct. 2304 (U.S. 2013), the Supreme Court
addressed the question of whether the FAA permits courts to
invalidate arbitration provisions on the grounds that they
preclude class arbitration of federal statutory claims.  The
dispute in American Express arose when merchants who accepted
American Express cards at their establishments brought a class
action lawsuit against the company for violations of the Sherman
Act notwithstanding a provision in the parties' service agreements
providing there "shall be no right or authority for any claims to
be arbitrated on a class action basis."  Finding that the class
arbitration waiver does not contravene antitrust laws, the Supreme
Court ruled that there was no basis for invalidating the provision
barring class actions in this circumstance.  Most recently, the
Supreme Court issued a ruling that: reinforced the weight of its
decision in Concepcion; and expressed a commitment to ensuring
that state courts evaluate arbitration provisions on "equal
footing" with other contracts, in DIRECTV v. Imburgia, 136 S.Ct.
463 (U.S. 2015).  As with the other cases it confronted, the court
reversed the lower court's decision that refused to enforce an
arbitration provision as written.

Following on the heels of these Supreme Court cases, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in September 2016, issued a ruling in
a case that involved both wrongful death and survival causes of
action, only the latter of which was subject to mandatory
arbitration, in Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, 147 A.3d
490 (Pa. 2016).  The lower courts denied a motion to bifurcate,
which would have allowed the survival action to be arbitrated,
ruling instead that the two actions had to be consolidated
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.  The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, finding that the FAA
pre-empted the rules of civil procedure. Citing several U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, the court asserted that, "while state
courts have attempted to reconcile their state law contract
defenses and public policy protections with the preemptive effect
of the FAA, . . . the United States has endeavored to compel
judicial acceptance of private agreements to arbitrate."

While the American Express decision involved allegations of
Sherman Act violations, the Supreme Court did not find the anti-
trust statute to be a "contrary congressional demand" that
overrides the FAA.  Accordingly, the court was not confronted with
a federal statute that was in direct conflict with the FAA.
However, such a clash may arise in the wake of Congress' enactment
of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203. Pursuant to
that act, which was prompted by the 2008 financial crisis, the
federal government prohibited the use of arbitration clauses in
mortgage loans and in connection with certain whistleblower
proceedings and authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission
to regulate the use of arbitration agreements in contracts between
consumers and securities broker-dealers and investment advisers.
Congress also directed the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
(CFPB) to analyze and potentially restrict the use of arbitration
agreements in connection with other types of financial products
and services.  Following its study, in 2016, the CFPB issued
proposed regulations governing pre-dispute arbitration clauses in
certain consumer financial product and services contracts.  The
regulations, if adopted, would prohibit arbitration clauses that
bar consumer class actions in court and require the submission of
certain arbitral proceeding records to the Bureau to ensure the
proceedings are fair to consumers.

Subsequently, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO), part of the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, published a Report on Protection of
Insurance Consumers and Access to Insurance in November 2016. This
report included a section in which the FIO questioned the use of
mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance contracts just as the
CFPB had done for consumer financial products.  The FIO expressed
concern about the lack of uniformity in state laws regarding the
use of arbitration clauses in insurance policies in light of the
fact that 24 states have no restrictions on arbitration clauses,
16 states prohibit the enforcement of arbitration clauses in all
insurance contracts and the remaining states permit the limitation
of arbitration in certain circumstances.  While many of these
state statutes apply only to personal lines insurance policies,
others are not so limited.
The combination of the CFPB and FIO reports, as well as Wells
Fargo's attempts to compel arbitration of disputes involving the
use of "sham" accounts, has renewed, and perhaps reshaped, the
debate about the use and scope of mandatory arbitration clauses in
contracts.  Instead of analyzing whether pre-dispute arbitration
clauses conform to the FAA under common law, courts will be forced
to determine whether the CFPB rules--assuming they survive
constitutional challenges constitute a "contrary congressional
demand" under American Express that the FAA cannot circumvent.
Notwithstanding the strong U.S. Supreme Court precedent favoring
arbitration, even when the disputes involve consumer contracts, if
the CFPB's 2016 recommendations become effective, we could see a
significant shift in the arbitration landscape.  If restrictions
on pre-dispute arbitration clauses contained in consumer financial
products and services contracts are upheld, policymakers and
plaintiffs attorneys may look for other ways to chip away at the
FAA.  If pre-dispute arbitration restrictions in insurance
contracts are implemented in response to the FIO's concerns,
additional pre-emption questions will arise given that states, not
the federal government, govern the business of insurance while the
FAA is a federal statute. Moreover, while the CFPB and FIO appear
to be focusing on consumer contracts and personal lines insurance
respectively, might the limitations they seek to impose be
extended to contracts between commercial parties?

Many articles have been written about the advantages of
arbitration, and it is not the intent of these authors to rehash
them.  Suffice it to say that sophisticated commercial parties
should be permitted to contractually determine the way in which
their disputes are to be resolved.  The concerns Congress, and by
extension the CFPB, has expressed about consumers who are party to
contracts of adhesion do not apply to parties of commercial
contracts.  Yet, it is not far-fetched to envision the expansion
of restrictions on arbitration agreements where there is any
imbalance, real or perceived, in bargaining power.  For example,
if Congress were to make distinctions between smaller, "mom and
pop" type businesses and Fortune 500 companies, it may determine
that the smaller commercial parties need similar protection and
start to limit the use of arbitration in certain circumstances in
those contracts.  Such a result could take us down a slippery
slope and make the FAA virtually unrecognizable.  For those
businesses that use arbitration clauses in their contracts,
keeping a close watch on what transpires with the CFPB's proposed
rules is a necessity.

* More Workplace Class Action Litigation Expected in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that private
plaintiffs and the government are likely to be aggressive in 2017
in bringing workplace class action litigation, and in-house
counsel need to be equally aggressive in identifying and
addressing class action vulnerabilities, according to a massive
new report from labor and employment firm Seyfarth Shaw.

"Our goal is for this report to guide clients . . . and to enable
corporate counsel to make sound and informed litigation decisions
while minimizing risk," says Gerald "Jerry" Maatman, a Seyfarth
partner and author of the report.

"The key takeaway for in-house corporate counsel is that the
plaintiffs' class action bar did very well in 2016," Mr. Maatman
says.

For example, plaintiffs were able to win class action
certification in 50 percent of employment discrimination actions,
66 percent of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
actions, and 76 percent of wage-and-hour class and collective
actions.

The 2017 Workplace Class Action Report cites six trends, led by
"dynamics" in recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, which "has
accepted more cases for review -- and issued more rulings -- than
ever before that have impacted the prosecution and defense of
class actions and government enforcement litigation," it states.

Confirming Mr. Maatman's insight, the report says, "Plaintiffs'
lawyers scored several significant victories in 2016 that will
make class actions easier to prosecute and result in more
certification orders."

The 881-page report, which can be ordered from the law firm,
contains 1,331 rulings.  The trends are discussed at length in Mr.
Maatman's blog.

Other trends detailed in the report:

The monetary value of the top employment-related class action
settlements declined significantly in 2016 after reaching all-time
highs in 2014 and 2015. But wage-and-hour settlements increased.

Employers fared better in decertification motions than in past
years.

Complex employment-related litigation filings were flat in 2016
after several years of increased filings, while for the first time
in over a decade, wage-and-hour filings declined.

Wage-and-hour certification decisions increased geometrically
compared with the year before.


* Tort Reformers Target Missouri Following Gargantuan Verdicts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Missouri is now the No. 1 target of tort reformers, who this
month outlined the most ambitious effort in the country at
dismantling laws they claim have led to gargantuan verdicts,
including a trio of double-digit awards last year against Johnson
& Johnson over its baby powder.

The Show-Me State isn't new to tort reform.  But bills introduced
over the years have been vetoed by the state's Democratic
governor, Jay Nixon.

But with the election on Nov. 8 and inauguration of Gov. Eric
Greitens, a Republican, and the GOP maintaining its
supermajorities in both houses of the Missouri Legislature, tort
reformers are salivating over their chances of amending a legal
system they say is hampering Missouri's business climate.

"When it comes to Missouri's litigation climate, we think there's
a particular crisis," said Harold Kim, executive vice president of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform. "Our
message to leadership is to do as much tort reform as possible in
one fell swoop."

The Chamber's group launched an advertising campaign encouraging
legislators to pass a lengthy list of tort reform measures that
would reduce the state's "avalanche of lawsuits."

Plaintiffs lawyers, while not deterred, acknowledge they are in
for a big fight.

"We are facing a very tough battle," said Brett Emison --
brett@lelaw.com -- who sits on the executive committee of the
Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys and is a partner at
Langdon & Emison in Lexington, Missouri.  "We are massively
outgunned when we have the entire U.S. Chamber of Commerce
lobbying to protect big businesses and corporations that injure
people.  It is not a fair playing field."

TORT REFORM ON THE TABLE

Tort reformers swung into action soon after a string of verdicts
came out of Missouri, particularly three awards in the 22nd
Circuit Court in St. Louis totaling $197 million in cases alleging
Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused women to get
ovarian cancer.  Last month, that courthouse edged out California
to rank No. 1 on the American Tort Reform Association's Judicial
Hellhole report, which highlighted its "junk science," "groundless
lawsuits" and "monstrous verdicts."

Citing that report, Missouri House Speaker Todd Richardson this
month outlined the top priorities for the legislation session that
began on Jan. 4, including "major pieces of tort reform" he
expected to introduce right away.

"We want to improve the overall legal environment here in
Missouri," he said.  "Our court system needs to be fair to both
plaintiffs and defendants."

In Missouri, tort reform bills in past years took a more measured
approach, said Richard AuBuchon, a lawyer and lobbyist who was
senior staff to the governor when a comprehensive tort reform
package was passed in 2005.  In contrast, both houses were hit
with dozens of tort reform bills this month.

"This stuff will be passed," said Mr. AuBuchon, of AuBuchon Law
Firm in Jefferson City, Missouri.  "The question is, how much?"
Ted Meadows -- ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com -- lead plaintiffs
attorney in those cases, said several of the reforms under
consideration could have a direct impact on the hundreds of talcum
powder plaintiffs with pending lawsuits in Missouri.  He expected
the cases to get more expensive and trials to get delayed.

"And that's what these defendants want: They want inefficiencies
to slow down these cases and keep these women from their day in
court," said Mr. Meadows, a principal at Montgomery, Alabama's
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles.

The most closely watched reform measures focus on issues that
could affect predominantly product liability and consumer cases.
Those are:

   -- Scientific expert testimony: Tort reformers have criticized
the state's standard in determining what scientific experts get
allowed into trials, and Johnson & Johnson has pinpointed this
issue as a primary contributors to the talcum powder verdicts. But
Mr. Emison said such a reform bill would force plaintiffs to pay
more for experts to produce reports that comply with the Daubert
standard, the federal rules for expert witnesses.

   -- Venue: In another issue raised in the talcum powder trials,
product liability cases in Missouri can include plaintiffs who
aren't from there, leading many in the defense bar to raise
concerns about forum shopping.  "Non-Missouri plaintiffs are being
shoved into Missouri primarily by virtue of these joinder and
venue provisions that have been really stretched out of all
reason," said James Beck -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- a partner at
Reed Smith in Philadelphia.

   -- Medical damages: Referred to as "collateral source," reform
bills would lower damage awards by eliminating the costs paid by a
plaintiff's medical insurance.  Mr. Emison countered: "The
defendant, who has been found negligent, responsible for the
injuries and has not paid a penny of those premiums, should not
get the benefit of that discount."

   -- The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act: The state's
consumer law became a target after a new crop of food labeling
cases hit the courts in the past year, particularly in St. Louis.
"Our Merchandising Practices Act has swallowed itself and become
such a morass it has to be amended in some sort," Mr. AuBuchon
said.  "Labeling some product 'all natural' can lend itself to
litigation even when no harm is being done."


* US Securities Class Action Filings Up 32% in 2016
---------------------------------------------------
Three hundred securities class actions were filed in US federal
courts in 2016, a 32% increase over 2015 and the highest number of
filings of any year since the aftermath of the 2000 dot-com crash,
according to "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation:
2016 Full-Year Review," an annual report released by NERA Economic
Consulting.

"The record number of securities class action cases in 2016 was
largely driven by merger-objection cases, with 88 such filings,"
said NERA Managing Director Dr. David Tabak.  "Federal merger-
objection cases, which allege a breach of fiduciary duty by
directors and officers, grew at the fastest rate since 2010.
However, this recent growth is more likely due to state court
decisions limiting 'disclosure only' settlements, rather than due
to increased M&A activity.  Plaintiffs have begun to shift merger-
objection cases to venues outside of Delaware, though the full
extent of this trend remains to be seen."

A total of 113 securities class actions settled in 2016, the
highest number observed since 2011, and a near-record 149 cases
were dismissed.  For the first time since the passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), more cases were
dismissed than settled.

The average settlement amount increased substantially for the
second straight year, reaching $72 million in 2016, up by more
than 35% compared to the 2015 figure.  However, excluding outlier
cases that settled for more than $1 billion, the average
settlement amount decreased to $43 million from $53 million in
2015.  The 2016 median settlement amount, which is more robust to
the effects of outliers, increased by more than a fifth from the
2015 median amount of $7.4 million to $9.1 million.

Additional Key Trends

   -- Section 11 allegations accounted for 20 filings in 2016,
which is approximately equal to the average rate since 2010, but
23% lower than the rate of such filings in 2015.

   -- Filings continued to be concentrated in the Second and Ninth
Circuits -- with 87 case filings in the Ninth Circuit (a 20%
increase) and an all-time high of 72 filings in the Second
Circuit.  Third Circuit filings reached 34, up from 21 in 2012. In
the Fifth Circuit, 17 class actions were filed, the fewest in four
years.

   -- The 300 federal securities class action suits filed in 2016
involved approximately 5.2% of US publicly traded companies.  The
average probability of a firm being targeted by a "standard"
securities class action (e.g., Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or
Section 12) was 3.4% in 2016, only slightly higher than the
average probability of 3.0% between 2000 and 2002.

   -- 28% of the total securities class action cases filed in 2016
(85 cases) were brought against firms in the Health Technology and
Services sector, almost double that of 2015.  Finance Sector
filings made up 16% of total filings.

   -- In 94% of securities class action filed in 2000-2016, a
motion to dismiss was filed. Only 15% of securities class actions
filed during this period reached a decision on a motion for class
certification.

   -- 674 securities class actions are pending in the federal
system, a decrease from the high of 717 in 2005.

NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 25 years.  This year-end study, Recent Trends in
Securities Class Action Litigation: 2016 Full-Year Review, is
co-authored by NERA Senior Consultants Stefan Boettrich and
Svetlana Starykh, with contributions from Dr. David Tabak.  In
addition to NERA's US report, the firm produces annual reports on
securities class action litigation in Canada and on UK regulatory
enforcement actions.

To download the report, visit:
http://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2017/recent-trends-in-
securities-class-action-litigation--2016-full-y.html

                           About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's leading
law firms and corporations.  With its main office in New York
City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across North
America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.


* Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Expected to Rise in 2017
------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Bolden-Barrett, writing for HRDrive, reports that the
Trump administration will likely try to repeal or amend some
pro-worker wage and hour laws and/or or ease up enforcement under
a Republican-led Labor Dept.  Employers need only continue
complying with the laws while closely observing the course
Republicans will take.

Class-action settlements can be staggering in costs for employers,
especially small businesses.  Wage and hour suits often stem from
managers within companies making separate -- and sometimes
disparate -- decisions on hiring, promotions and wages, Gary
Siniscalco --
grsiniscalco@orrick.com -- a senior counsel at San Francisco-based
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, told Bloomberg.

Employers might lower their risk of being sued by running internal
audits to make sure there's uniformity in wage and hour decisions
without discrepancies.

Mr. Maatman told Bloomberg that courts grant conditional
certification to wage and hour class action suits filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 75% of the time. Employers should
keep this statistic in mind.

Dive Brief:

   -- Class action suits numbered 8,304 in 2016, down from 8,954
in 2015.  But more suits are expected in 2017, Gerald Maatman, a
partner in Seyfarth Shaw LLP, told Bloomberg BNA.  Mr. Maatman
co-chairs the law firm's class action litigation practice group.

  -- Although 2016 had fewer suits than 2015, the payouts were
larger: The top 10 wage and hour class action suits totaled $695.5
million last year, jumping over $200 million from 2015. Employees
filed suits against employers over minimum wage, overtime and
other violations, says Bloomberg.

  -- Class action suits must be certified to proceed.  But
Mr. Maatman told Bloomberg that plaintiffs' lawyers in wage and
hour cases don't have to spend money on expert witnesses or
discovery to get a class action suit certified.  The pressure,
then, is on employers to settle in these cases, he said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Reverses Remand of "Zeringue"
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard Zeringue sued Crane Co. and twenty other defendants in
state court, asserting strict liability, negligence, and failure
to warn claims to recover for injuries allegedly caused by
asbestos exposure.  Crane removed the case to federal court
pursuant to the federal-officer removal statute.  After the
district court remanded the case to state court, Crane appealed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded, holding that Crane has established the right to
remove the suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442.  Because
"removal of the entire case is appropriate so long as a single
claim satisfies the federal officer removal statute," the Fifth
Circuit does not determine whether Crane independently established
the right to remove Zeringue's failure to warn claim.

The appeals case is HOWARD ZERINGUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRANE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-30058 (5th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 20, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/z4yiOQ from Leagle.com.

Margaret E. Woodward, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicholas P. Vari, for Defendant-Appellant.

Barry Clayton Campbell, for Defendant-Appellant.

Scott Michael Galante, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Damon R. Pourciau, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jennifer C. Deasy, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael James Ross, for Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spiewak" Remanded to NY State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York remanded the asbestos-
related case styled THOMAS SPIEWAK and ELLEN SPIEWAK, Plaintiffs,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., formerly known as Ventfabrics Inc.;
BINGHAMTON HARDWARE & HVAC SUPPLY CORP.; BIRD INCORPORATED,
formerly known as Bird & Son, Inc.; BOEING COMPANY, individually
and as successor to McDonnell Douglas; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC;
BURNHAM CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation
formerly known as Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corp., a
Pennsylvania Corp. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION; COLONIAL PLUMBING AND
HEATING SUPPLY, INC.; CURTISS WRIGHT FLOW CONTROL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor to Farris Valves and/or Sprague
Pumps; DAP, INC., formerly known as La Mirada Products Co., Inc.;
DURO DYNE CORPORATION; EATON CORPORATION, individually and now
known as Eaton Electrical, Inc. and as successor to the Vickers
Pump Company and Cutler Hammer, Inc.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER
WHEELER, LLC; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum
Company; GOODRICH CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to the Cleveland Pneumatic Company, a Division of the
Pneumo Abex Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abex, Inc.
formerly known as B.F. Goodrich Company; GOODYEAR CANADA, INC.;
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (THE); HENDERSON-JOHNSON CO. INC.;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor-in-interest to The
Bendix Corp. formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc.; IMO
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor to Turbine
Equipment Company formerly known as Delaval, Inc.; LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, individually and as successor by merger to Lockheed
Corporation; MCDONNELL DOUGLASS CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW YORKER BOILER COMPANY, INC.; OWENS
ILLINOIS, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, individually and as
successor by merger to Stratoflex, Inc. (Cleveland Brake
Division); PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING CORP.;
SECURITY SUPPLY CORPORATION; SYRACUSE SUPPLY COMPANY; T.J. BELL &
CO., INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Pratt Whitney (Pratt
& Whitney/Aircraft Division); YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor to Frick Company; EATON AEROQUIP,
formerly known as Aeroquip Corporation, Defendants, No. 1:17-CV-40
(FJS/DJS)(N.D.N.Y.), to the New York Supreme Court, County of
Schenectady.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 23, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/lXeQi5 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Spiewak, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. White, Office
of Richard M. White.

Ellen Spiewak, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. White, Office
of Richard M. White.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas M.
Beneventano, La Sorsa, Beneventano Law Firm.

Avocet Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Casey Chamra,
Esq. -- cchamra@ofwvlaw.com -- O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu,
LLC & Steven A. Weiner, Esq. -- sweiner@ofwvlaw.com O'Toole
Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu, LLC.

Binghamton Hardware & HVAC Supply Corp., Defendant, represented by
William A. Cooney, Esq. -- WCooney@bmmfirm.com -- Barry, McTiernan
Law Firm.

Bird Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Carol G. Snider, Esq.
-- csnider@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon LLP -- Buffalo
Office.

Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Erik C. DiMarco, Gordon
& Rees LLP -- New York Office & Virginia P. Squitieri, Gordon &
Rees LLP -- New York Office.

Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, represented by Anna M.
DiLonardo, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Tanenbaum,
Sedgwick LLP -- Newark Office.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Judith A.
Yavitz, Darger, Errante Law Firm.

Colonial Plumbing and Heating Supply, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Peter S. Marlette, Esq. -- pmarlette@barclaydamon.com --
Barclay Damon LLP -- Buffalo Office.

Curtiss Wright Flow Control Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christian H. Gannon, Segal, McCambridge Law Firm -- New York
Office.

DAP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric M. Gernant, McGivney,
Kluger Law Firm -- Syracuse Office.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph P. LaSala,
Esq. -- JLASALA@MDMC-LAW.COM -- McElroy, Deutsch Law Firm --
Morristown NJ Office.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Mullins,
II, Gibson, McAskill Law Firm.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis E. Vega,
Sedgwick LLP -- Newark Office & Michael A. Tanenbaum, Sedgwick LLP
-- Newark Office.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Tanenbaum, Sedgwick LLP -- Newark Office.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christian
J. Soller, Hodgson, Russ Law Firm -- Albany Office.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick J. Dwyer,
Smith, Stratton Law Firm.

Goodyear Canada, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Jo
Herrscher, Phillips Lytle LLP -- Buffalo Office.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (THE), Defendant, represented by
Mary Jo Herrscher, Phillips Lytle LLP -- Buffalo Office.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Masino, Harris, Beach Law Firm -- Pittsford Office.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anna M.
DiLonardo, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

McDonnell Douglass Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erik C.
DiMarco, Gordon & Rees LLP -- New York Office & Virginia P.
Squitieri, Gordon & Rees LLP -- New York Office.

Owens Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul A. Scrudato,
Schiff, Hardin Law Firm -- New York Office.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard
O'Leary, Troutman, Sanders Law Firm -- NY Office.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Philip J.
O'Rourke, Lewis, Brisbois Law Firm -- New York Office.

Rheem Manufacturing Corp., Defendant, represented by Mark S.
Nemeth, Feldman, Kieffer Law Firm.

Security Supply Corporation, Defendant, represented by William A.
Cooney, Barry, McTiernan Law Firm.

Syracuse Supply Company, Defendant, represented by David E.
Richman, Rivkin, Radler Law Firm.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Judith A.
Yavitz, Darger, Errante Law Firm.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy
J. McHugh, Lavin, O'Neil Law Firm -- New York Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Bids to Quash Subpoena Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSE FRANK SHEPPARD, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Section "R" (3), the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants, which plaintiff collectively refers to as the
"asbestos companies," caused or contributed to his development of
asbestos-related lung cancer.  In particular, the plaintiff claims
that from approximately 1967 through 1992 during his employment
"in various positions by and on the premises of Freeport's Port
Sulphur facility, Grand Isle facility, Garden Island Bay facility,
Caminada facility, as well as various drilling rigs," he was
exposed on a "daily basis" to "asbestos and asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed, and sold by the 'asbestos
companies.'"  The alleged years of asbestos-exposure are extended
to 1994.  All defendants are alleged to be "jointly, severally,
and in solido liable" to plaintiff.

The Defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on March 22, 2016, on
the basis that the Court possesses original jurisdiction under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in
part the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of
Records Deposition to the extent the subpoena is modified.
Magistrate Knowles also granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash
Subpoena and Notice of Records Deposition and Motion for
Protective Order given that this subpoena seeks no settlement
documents.

Magistrate Knowles further ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion to
Overrule Rile Power, Inc.'s Objections and Compel Meaningful
Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Sanctions is granted in part to
the extent that the Court orders Riley to respond to the
plaintiff's discovery requests related to any facility at which
Sheppard worked and at which Riley Power may have had boilers.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 23, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/o980KW from Leagle.com.

Jesse Frank Sheppard, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement.

Jesse Frank Sheppard, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Peter
Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Leigh
Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., Skylar B. Rudin, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented
by Edwin Scott Hackenberg, Henchy, Verbois & Hackenberg LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer
D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G.
Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis
Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Samuel L. Burk, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, pro hac vice & Trevor Matthew Cutaiar, Mouledoux,
Bland, Legrand & Brackett, LLC.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ernest G. Foundas,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis
Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N.
St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Perrey S.
Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Samuel L. Burk,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, pro hac vice.

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

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John Willard Elder, Paine
Bickers LLP, pro hac vice, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin, LLP,
Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C.
& Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves
Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman,
Watkins & Kurtz LLP & Katherine Weatherly Emma Trotter, Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant, represented by
Diana Cole Surprenant, Adams & Reese, LLP, Kathleen F. Drew, Adams
& Reese, LLP, Alex E. Cosculluela, Adams & Reese, LLP & David M.
Stein, Adams & Reese, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H.
Minor Pipes, III, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver,
LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Kimberly R. Silas, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman &
Sarver, LLC, Skylar B. Rudin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Susan Muller Rogge, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman,
Freeman & Sarver, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Court Applies Tennessee Law in "Murray"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Finding that there is a true conflict of law between Virginia and
Tennessee substantive law and after careful consideration of Rhode
Island's tort-specific and interest-weighing factors, the Superior
Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, determines that the unique
facts of the case captioned HAROLD WAYNE MURRAY AND JANICE M.
MURRAY Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al. Defendants, C.A. No. PC-
2016-0151 (R.I. Sup.), warrant application of Tennessee's laws.

Furthermore, an application of Tennessee law is appropriate under
the constitutional minimum contacts analysis and not violative of
any party's due process rights or equal protection rights, the
Superior Court held.  Therefore, under Rhode Island's choice-of-
law analysis, the Court determines that Tennessee substantive law
shall apply.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated January 18, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/EIdbu1 from Leagle.com.

Harold Wayne Murray and Janice M. Murray. John E. Deaton, Esq. --
jdeaton@deatonlawfirm.com

Lawrence J. Sugarman, Esq. -- lsugarman@cetllp.com -- Pneumo Abex
LLC.

Armstrong International, Inc., General Insulation Company, Matthew
C. Oleyer, Esq. -- moleyer@cetllp.com --

Pecora Corporation, Georgia Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, improperly named as
Freeport-McMoran Inc. as successor in interest to Cyprus Amax
Minerals Company, Weil-McLain, a Division of the Marley-Wyliam
Company, American Biltrite Inc.

Jonathan F. Tabasky, Esq. -- jtabasky@mgmlaw.com -- and Brian D.
Gross, Esq. -- bgross@mgmlaw.com

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company Timothy M. Zabbo, Esq. --
tzabbo@hinckleyallen.com -- Mitchell R. Edwards, Esq. --
medwards@hinckleyallen.com

Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Boiler Supply
Company, A.O. Smith Corporation. Peter F. Mathieu, Esq.,
pmathieu@kkrs.com

Western Auto Supply Company, Genuine Parts Company, National
Automotive Parts Association. Margreta Vellucci, Esq.,
mvellucci@pondnorth.com

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Thomas W.
Lyons, Esq., tlyons@straussfactor.com

Hilliard Corporation, Hajoca Corporation, Superior Boiler Works,
Inc., Foster Wheeler LLC, J.H. France Refractories Company, Oatey
Company. Kathryn T.R. O'Brien, Esq., krogersobrien@apslaw.com,

A.Y. McDonald Manufacturing Company, Asco Valve, Inc., Armstrong
Pumps, Inc., Fisher Controls International LLC, Hamilton
Sundstrand, incorrectly designated and sued as United Technologies
Corporation, individually and as successor to Sundstrand Pumps,
Rheem Manufacturing Company, Sundyne, LLC, incorrectly designated
and sued as United Technologies Corporation as successor to
Sundstrand Pumps, Whirlpool Corporation. T. Dos Urbanski, Esq.,
durbanski@melicklaw.com,

Modine Manufacturing Company, Noland Company, Amtrol, Inc., Taco,
Inc. Craig R. Waksler, Esq., Jennifer A. Whelan, Esq.,
cwaksler@eckertseamans.com, jwhelan@eckertseamans.com,

*Conwed Corporation *Deere & Company *Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
Nancy Kelly, Esq., nkelly@governo.com,

*Rain Bird Corporation, erroneously named as Hammond Valve
Corporation. Jennifer E. Wheelock, Esq., jwheelock@mklaw.us.com,

*FMC Corporation, on behalf of its former Peerless Pump, Chicago
Pump and Northern Pump businesses, improperly sued as FMC
Corporation, individually and on behalf of its former divisions
Northern Pumps, Chicago Pumps and Peerless Pumps. Paul Dwyer,
Esq., Paul.dwyer@lockelord.com,

*Burnham LLC. John R. Felice, Esq., jfelice@hermesnetburn.com,

*Navistar, Inc. Anthony J. Sbarra, Esq., Holly M. Polglase, Esq.,
asbarra@hermesnetburn.com, hpolglase@hermesnetburn.com,

*United States Steel Corporation, f/k/a The American Steel & Wire
Co. Adam A. Larson, Esq., alarson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com,

*Crane Co. *Slant/Fin Corporation. Kendra A. Bergeron, Esq., David
A. Goldman, Esq., kbergeron@cmbg3.com, dgoldman@cmbg3.com,

*BASF Catalysts LLC. Stephen Adams, Esq., sadams@bartongilman.com,

*Flowserve US, Inc. solely as successor to Edward Valves, Inc. and
Rockwell Manufacturing Company (Sued as Flowserve, US, Inc.,
individually and as successor to Aldrich Pumps, Edward Valves and
Vogt Valves and individually and as successor to and is parent
company to Rockwell Manufacturing Co., Durco, Durion, Valtek and
Sealite) *Flowserve US, Inc., solely as successor to Vogt Valve
Company (Sued as Flowserve US, Inc., individually and as successor
to Aldrich Pumps, Edward Valves and Vogt Valves and individually
and as successor to and as parent company to Rockwell
Manufacturing Co., Durco, Durion, Valtek and Sealite) *Rockwell
Automation, Inc. (Sued as "Rockwell Automation, Inc., Individually
and as Successor to Timken Heating Business and S. Co., Inc., fka
Scaife Company, as successor in interest to Rockwell Spring and
Axle Company's Timken Silent Automatic Division" *Rockwell
Automation, Inc. (Sued as "Rockwell Automation, Inc., Individually
and as Successor to Allen-Bradley") *Daikin Applied Americas Inc.
(Sued as "AAF-McQuay Inc., n/k/a Dakin Applied Americas Inc. d/b/a
McQuay International, Individually and as successor to Singer").
Mark J. Claflin, Esq., mclafin@hl-law.com,

*Graybar Electric Company *Homasote Company *Spirax Sarco, Inc.
*Dometic LLC as alleged successor to Servel Corporation and Arkla
Corporation *Carrier Corporation, including Bryant Heating &
Cooling improperly named as "Carrier Corporation, individually and
as successor to Bryant, f/k/a Bryant Heater & Manufacturing
Company". Stephen P. Cooney, Esq., James A. Ruggieri, Esq.,
scooney@hcc-law.com, jruggieri@hcc-law.com,

*Johnstone Supply, Inc. *Trane U.S. Inc. f/k/a American Standard
Inc. Brian A. Fielding, Esq., bfielding@adlercohen.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RCH Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Hastings"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware issued
an order denying Defendant RCH Newco II, LLC's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating
to JESSE HASTINGS and his wife, DIANE HASTINGS, Plaintiffs, v.
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-06-014 ASB
(Del. Sup.).

After a review of Mr. Hastings' testimony, the Court finds that
RCH Newco has not met its burden of proving no genuine issues of
material fact exist regarding Mr. Hastings' exposure to its
product.  The Plaintiff, according to Judge Medinilla, has
presented some evidence that he was exposed to Galbestos for an
appreciable period of time at several jobsites as an ironworker
and foreman.  Though there are inconsistencies in his testimony,
those inconsistencies may be addressed at trial since they do not
render his testimony so inconsistent that no reasonable juror
would accept his testimony, the Court held.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 17, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/ron7zT from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Sup. Ct. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Floyd"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant, James Floyd, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of James C.
Floyd, Sr., Deceased, commenced suit against 45 defendants,
alleging that James Floyd, Sr., deceased, contracted mesothelioma
through his exposure to various asbestos-containing products while
employed at Sun Oil from 1939 to 1951 and at Scott Paper from 1951
to 1984.

On October 28, 2015, the lower court granted AstenJohnson, Inc.'s
motion, finding that the appellant failed to produce sufficient
evidence the Decedent inhaled asbestos from the Appellee's dryer
felts.  On November 17, 2015 the matter settled as to all
remaining non-bankrupt parties.  Appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal.

On appeal, Appellant raised the following issue for the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania to review:

     Did the lower court err when it ruled that there was no
genuine issue of material fact as to [Decedent's] exposure to
asbestos while working with asbestos dryer felts manufactured by
[Appellee]?

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that while
the Appellee conceded in answers to interrogatories that it
produced and sold asbestos-containing dryer felt during the period
the Decedent worked at Scott Paper, this admission is insufficient
to conclude that the Appellee even sold asbestos-containing dryer
felts to Scott Paper, let alone that the Decedent encountered
these dryer felts.  Further, the Appellant was only able to
provide evidence that the Decedent worked in dusty conditions with
the dryer felts, but conceded that he was unable to identify the
source of the dust, the brand of the dryer felts, and whether or
not the dryer felts contained asbestos.  Thus, as the Court found
in Sterling v. P & H Mining Equipment, 113 A.3d 1277, 1281 (Pa.
Super. 2015), the only evidence presented concerning the
Decedent's tenure at Scott Paper failed to contain any information
concerning the Decedent's frequency, regularity, or proximity to
the Appellee's asbestos-containing dryer felts.

Moreover, the Superior Court held that despite the Appellant's
contention, it is not required to regard the finding in Wright v.
Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 2008), as binding
precedent, as Koronkiewicz's deposition testimony was credited in
Wright mainly because Koronkiewicz was able to identify Wright as
a person who worked frequently in close proximity to an asbestos-
containing product.  The Superior Court pointed out that, in this
case, by contrast, Koronkiewicz's deposition testimony cannot be
treated in the same way as it was in Wright because Koronkiewicz
never identifies the Decedent as a person having exposure to the
Appellee's asbestos-containing dryer felts.  Thus, because the
deposition testimony the Appellant provides of other Scott Paper
employees provides no information regarding the frequency,
regularity, or proximity of the Decedent's alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Appellee's dryer felts, the Superior Court found
that the Appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support
the inference that the Decedent inhaled asbestos from the
Appellee's dryer felts.  Therefore, the trial court properly
entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee, the Superior Court
concluded.

The appeals case is JAMES FLOYD, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
JAMES C. FLOYD, SR., DECEASED, Appellant, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC.,
No. 3663 EDA 2015 (Pa. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/wgE6CN from Leagle.com.

Robert E. Paul, Paul, Reich & Myers, P.C., for Appellant, James
Floyd, Jr.

Richard P. Myers, Paul, Reich & Myers, P.C., for Appellant, James
Floyd, Jr.

George S. Bobnak, Christie & Young PC, for Appellee, AstenJohnson,
Inc.

John Joseph Delany, III, Delany McBride, PC, for Appellee,
AstenJohnson, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Appeals Ct. Affirms Statutory Employee Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JAMES HUEY FLETCHER AND JANET S. FLETCHER, v.
ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET AL., No. 2016-CA-0424 (La. App.), is an
appeal from the trial court's judgment, rendered after trial on
the merits, determining that James Huey Fletcher was a statutory
employee of ExxonMobile.

Mr. Fletcher was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2015.  Mr.
Fletcher, now in his 70s, worked at Keiser Aluminum in 1963 until
1966.  He later worked in a tool trailer at the Exxon refinery in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana from 1988 until 1999.  After Mr. Fletcher's
diagnosis, he and his wife filed suit against Kaiser, Exxon, and
multiple other defendants alleging asbestos exposure.  The only
defendants that proceeded to judgment in this bench trial were
Exxon and Anco Insulations.  The trial court found that Exxon was
Mr. Fletcher's statutory employer during his time at the refinery.
The trial court further found that Anco Insulations was not a
cause of Mr. Fletcher's exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
Subsequently, Mr. Fletcher filed this appeal.

On appeal, Mr. Fletcher maintains that the trial court erred in
its finding that he was a statutory employee of Exxon.

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed,
concluding that it cannot find that the trial court was manifestly
erroneous in its factual findings.  The Court of Appeals pointed
out that at the conclusion of the trial, post-trial briefs were
filed.  In the February 2016 judgment, the trial court examined
the evidence presented on the threshold issue of Mr. Fletcher's
employment status as it related to Exxon.  In so doing, the trial
court recognized the test in Kirkland v. Riverwood Int'l USA,
Inc., and noted that the factors created guidelines that are not
absolute or rigid, but are instead to be applied relatively when
determining if the contract work is part of the principal's trade,
business, or occupation.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 11, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/BDO2Tc from Leagle.com.

John Venezia, Julie O'Shesky, VENEZIA & ASSOCIATES, 757 St.
Charles Avenue, Suite 302, New Orleans, LA 70130, AND Lynn Eric
Williams, Jr., WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC, 433 Metairie Road, Suite
401, Metairie, LA 70005, AND John J. Finckbeiner, Jr., Samuel
Fuller, 2203 Pakenham Drive, Chalmette, LA 70043, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

Martin A. Stern, Raymond P. Ward, Diana C. Surprenant, ADAMS AND
REESE LLP, 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500, New Orleans, LA 70139.

James M. Williams, CHEHARDY, SHERMAN & WILLIAMS, One Galleria
Blvd., Suite 1100, Metairie, LA 70001.

David M. Bienvenu, Jr., Lexi T. Holinga, BIENVENU, BONNECAZE,
FOCO, VIATOR, HOLINGA LLC, 4210 Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA
70809, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Reverses Reduction of Damages Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brand Insulation, Inc. appeals the trial court verdict finding it
liable for the asbestos-related personal injuries of Barbara
Brandes.  Brand subcontracted to install asbestos-containing
insulation at ARCO's Cherry Point Refinery.  Barbara was the wife
of Raymond Brandes, who was exposed to asbestos while employed at
the ARCO Cherry Point Refinery from 1971 to 1975.  Raymond brought
asbestos home on his clothes, which Barbara regularly laundered.
She eventually developed mesothelioma.  On August 16, 2014,
Barbara filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against
numerous defendants for personal injuries sustained due to
asbestos exposure.  The case proceeded to trial with Brand as the
sole remaining defendant.  The jury rendered a verdict in favor of
Barbara and awarded her $3,500,000 in damages, which was reduced
to $2,500,000 on remittitur.  Brand appeals, and Barbara cross-
appeals the remittitur.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated January 23, 2017, affirmed the verdict and reverse the
remittitur.  The Court of Appeals held, among other things, that a
duty of care exists because Brand created a foreseeable risk of
harm to Barbara.  The Court of Appeals pointed out that Brand did
not label the location of asbestos insulation, knowing that it
would be habitually removed and create dust.  Brand did not employ
industrial hygiene practices to control asbestos dust during
installation.  The risks of asbestos dust to workers and others
residing in their household was foreseeable at the time of these
activities.

The Court of Appeals, in the issue of remittur, agreed with
Barbara who had argued that Brand waived any assignment of error
to the amount of the award because it failed to object to the
continuation of the trial after Barbara's death and to alleged
improper arguments at closing.  She had argued that even if the
assignment of error was not waived, her award should not have been
reduced because it was not unmistakably the result of passion or
prejudice.

The Court of Appeals also pointed out that Barbara offered
substantial evidence of her pain and suffering, and that her
condition was terminal.  The jury knew that Barbara would die of
her disease, and so, the fact of her death does not necessarily
undermine their verdict.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the
jury's damages award was not unmistakably the result of passion or
prejudice, and that it was supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant
of remittitur and remanded to the trial court to reinstate the
jury's verdict and damages award.

The appeals case is ESTATE OF BARBARA BRANDES, Respondent/Cross-
Appellant, v. BRAND INSULATIONS, INC. Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
and KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY,
HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC., f/k/a KAISER CEMENT CORPORATION;
METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, No. 73748-1-I
(Wash. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated January 23, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/pXj7RV from Leagle.com.

David Albert Shaw, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, 601 Union St Ste
4100, Seattle, WA, 98101-2380, Malika Johnson, Williams Kastner &
Gibbs PLLC, 601 Union St Ste 4100, Seattle, WA, 98101-1368,
Counsel for Appellants.

Jeffrey Mark Wolf, Seattle City Attorneys Office, 701 5th Ave Ste
2050, Seattle, WA, 98104-7095, Thomas H. HartIII, Attorney at Law,
223 Sumter Ave, Summerville, SC, 29483-5951, Glenn S. Draper,
Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 821 2nd Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA,
98104-1516, Kaitlin Tess Wright, Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC,
821 2nd Ave Ste 2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-1516, Matthew Phineas
Bergman, Bergman Draper Ladenburg, PLLC, 821 2nd Ave Ste 2100,
Seattle, WA, 98104-1516, Leonard J. Feldman, Peterson Wampold
Rosato Luna Knopp, 1501 4th Ave Ste 2800, Seattle, WA, 98101-3677,
Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Closed Until Feb. Due to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
James Silcocks, writing for Louth Ledger, reported that St James'
Church, Louth, is expected to be closed until early February after
asbestos lagging was discovered on underground piping.

Reverend Nick Brown, Rector of Louth, spoke before the Louth Town
Council meeting January 17 and said that the asbestos was found
during an investigation into the heating system, which stopped
working at the Church at the end of November.

However, Rev'd Brown said that regular church services would
continue, albeit at the Church House next door, and that
additional church services are available at St Michael's Church.

Rev'd Brown explained that the heating repairs at St James' Church
were postponed until the New Year due to the busy pre-Christmas
period.

He added that he was relieved the repairs hadn't taken place
sooner, as the discovery of asbestos could have forced the Church
to close over Christmas.

He continued: "The asbestos lagging is well out of reach, buried
several feet underground.

"It will be treated, rather than removed, as it is generally safer
to treat asbestos and leave it in place."

In the meantime, the corporation pews at the front of the Church -
- which are used by town councillors and other officials during
formal services -- have been removed in order to allow the work to
be carried out.

Fortunately, although the overall repair costs will run into tens
of thousands of pounds, St James' Church has a 'fabric fund' which
benefits from bequests and donations which will be able to cover
the costs -- although this fund will still need to be replenished
over time for the future.

Visit the Louth Leader website for further updates on St James'
Church in the coming weeks.

For more information about asbestos and the reasons why its needs
to be treated and contained, visit:
www.maacenter.org/mesothelioma/asbestos/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Seeks Chancery Seal on Manager's Ouster
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reported that a Kansas-based
asbestos personal injury trust asked Delaware's Chancery Court to
confirm the ouster of the organization's manager, saying the
action was prompted by his alleged years of malfeasance, including
"lavish," self-approved bonuses.

T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition LLC and parent trustee Seth J.
Arnowitz also sought a temporary restraining order barring
longtime manager Steven L. Carter from continuing to act in his
former official position in any way, citing a risk of irreparable
harm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work to Begin at Davidson Asbestos Site
--------------------------------------------------------
David Boraks, writing for WFAE.org, reported that despite the
Trump administration's freeze on new Environmental Protection
Agency contracts, a federal cleanup of asbestos found at homes in
Davidson remains on track. In addition, state officials say work
will start to cap asbestos that spilled near an old factory in the
neighborhood.

The EPA tested homes around the old Carolina Asbestos plant last
fall, after neighbors told stories of how asbestos once was
routinely spread on driveways and yards. At least 17 homes were
found with high enough asbestos to warrant removal.

This week, the EPA announced a freeze on new grants and contracts.
But a spokeswoman says that doesn't apply to Superfund cleanups
already underway, like this one.  EPA is awaiting more tests and
test results, but is still planning removal.

Meanwhile work begins Monday, Jan. 30, on a separate project to
cover loose asbestos that spilled near the mill last fall.
Officials say ground hogs or other small animals caused the spill
when they burrowed into soil covering an old asbestos pile.

Contractors overseen by the state department of Environmental
Quality will cut down trees and shrubs. Then they'll install a
plastic liner and cover it with new soil to prevent further
asbestos runoff.

The mill's owner, Metrolina Warehouse LLC, is paying for the work,
which should take about four days. The contractor is S&ME.

A DEQ spokesman said workers will be wearing protective gear,
including breathing masks, just in case asbestos fibers are kicked
up. They'll also monitor air quality to make sure no airborne
asbestos gets into the neighborhood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $80MM Asbestos Settlement Reached in Kansas City
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that an $80
million asbestos settlement involving two former Jackson County
courthouse employees led to Missouri's largest medical monitoring
fund established in an asbestos case.

The class-action asbestos lawsuit settled more than 30 years after
a renovation exposed thousands of government workers to deadly
asbestos fibers.

Jackson County and Kansas City-based U.S. Engineering, the firm
responsible for the asbestos removal, agreed to settle the case in
October 2016, just a week prior to the opening trial date.

An estimated 7,500 people -- former courthouse employees, jurors,
attorneys and jail inmates -- could qualify for ongoing medical
screenings financed by the bulk of the settlement for the next 30
years, according to the Kansas City Star.

Seeking Preventative Medical Testing

Former employees Jeanne Morgan and David Elsea instigated the
class-action suit in 2015, a few years after co-worker Nancy Lopez
died of mesothelioma. The asbestos-related cancer, on average,
claims its victims one year after diagnosis.

The two wanted nothing more than free medical testing for the rest
of their lives -- a way to ensure any potential asbestos-related
health issues could be caught early.

But the asbestos settlement also made this possible for thousands
of others, dividing the beneficiaries into two groups:

   * Those who can prove they were in the courthouse for at least
80 hours during the two-year asbestos removal are eligible for
thorough annual medical exams, including chest X-rays and blood
screenings.

   * Anyone who can prove they were in the courthouse for at least
80 hours in a year after work was done between 1986 and 2007 is
eligible for one free screening every five years.

In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court began allowing medical
monitoring lawsuits contending that it could save lives and be
less costly, rather than waiting for people exposed to toxic
substances to get sick.

U.S. Engineering Took No Precautions

From 1983 to 1985, U.S. Engineering worked on renovations at the
Jackson County courthouse.

Morgan testified that asbestos dust and grit coated everything as
workers cut through old heating pipes wrapped in asbestos
insulation.

Court records indicate workers tracked the lethal dust throughout
the building as they hauled it down a freight elevator and out
into the dumpster in the parking lot.

"The particles would be . . . all over the papers," Morgan said in
a 2015 hearing.

Witnesses testified the laborers didn't use masks, gloves or post
warning signs for unsuspecting employees. Fine dust particles blew
out of the air vents during the two-year renovation.

A former top executive for U.S. Engineering offered testimony
against his former employer, stating the company failed to prevent
asbestos fibers from entering the air when workers cut sections of
asbestos-covered pipes.

Company Said It Followed Regulations

Despite the asbestos settlement, U.S. Engineering continued to
defend itself, offering a prepared statement the company "complied
with relevant industry and regulatory safety standards" in effect
at the time.

"Integrity and safety have always been at the heart of our 123-
year-old, family-owned business, and we will not waiver from our
commitment to these fundamental values," CEO of U.S. Engineering
Co. Holdings Tyler Nottberg said in the statement.

Asbestos use was common in building materials prior to the 1970s
because of its excellent fire-retardant properties. Asbestos-
containing building materials, such as flooring, insulation and
ceiling tiles, pose little danger as long as they remain intact
and undisturbed.

The danger comes when the materials are broken, chipped or cut,
causing the release of microscopic asbestos threads into the air.
When inhaled, the tiny fibers lodge in lung and abdominal tissue
and in some cases lead to mesothelioma, asbestos lung cancer or
other serious respiratory illnesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Still Fights vs. Asbestos-related Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenjiro Amimoto, writing for The Japan News, reported that Ken
Takahashi has the ambitious goal of eliminating asbestos-related
diseases.

After leaving his post as a professor at the University of
Occupational and Environmental Health (UOEH) in Kitakyushu,
Takahashi will become the first Japanese to serve as director of
the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI), an institution in
Sydney known for its globally advanced research on mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related diseases.

After graduating from Keio University's School of Medicine,
Takahashi first became a surgeon. As he was an admirer of
bacteriologist Hideyo Noguchi, he decided to study public health
at UOEH's graduate school, where one of his former school seniors
was also enrolled.

While working on a study, he was surprised to find white shadows
in X-rays of the lungs of many construction workers who received
medical checkups. The shadows appeared to be attributable to the
inhalation of asbestos fibers.

British medical journal The Lancet published a report by Takahashi
in 2007. His research showing a correlation between asbestos usage
and deaths from mesothelioma attracted global attention.

The risks of asbestos are widely known but it continues to be
used, particularly in developing countries.

The number of deaths caused by asbestos-related diseases is
estimated at 107,000 a year.

At ADRI, Takahashi will be in charge of promoting and facilitating
research on the treatment and prevention of asbestos-related
diseases, as well as the development of new drugs for the
diseases.

"Asbestos-related diseases are preventable. I want to protect
workers around the world," said 60-year-old Takahashi, who will
lead 24 researchers at ADRI.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davidson Mill Redevelopment Unearths Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Boraks, writing for WFAE.org, reported that plan to
redevelop an old mill in downtown Davidson has led to the
discovery -- or re-discovery -- of disease-causing asbestos on the
site and around the neighborhood. As officials figure out how to
clean it up, historical fears and concerns have surfaced as well.

The complaints Ken Rhame had received were quickly confirmed when
he visited the neighborhood in November for the EPA. He spotted a
suspicious white residue that neighbors were talking about.

"We saw asbestos containing material, or what we call suspect
asbestos containing material, in the street. We sampled that
material, got the results back the same day, which indicated that
it was 70 percent asbestos," Rhame said.

That wasn't a surprise to Ruby Houston. Her house faces a wooded
hillside behind the mill, formed by asbestos. Some neighbors call
it "Mystery Hill." Houston just calls it "asbestos hill."

"It's buried asbestos," said Houston, who has lived here since
1955. "And I think it's probably more than in this general area.
And I'm told it's buried underneath some homes, some businesses."

BLAME THE GROUND HOG

Officials think a groundhog caused the recent spill, by burrowing
into a soil cap from the 1980s. That kicked up the asbestos. When
it rained, runoff from the hill turned white.  It's been cleaned
up and a new temporary cap is in the works. But a permanent
solution is needed before any development takes place where the
old mill -- now called Metrolina Warehouse -- now sits.

It's a one-story brick building on Depot Street, next to the
railroad tracks in Davidson. It was built around 1890 as the
Linden cotton mill. From 1930 to 1960, it housed Carolina
Asbestos. The factory made asbestos fabric, tiles and shingles.
And they tossed waste asbestos into a ditch.

Houston says people didn't think about that, even though it turned
the creek in front of her house milky. The health risks of
asbestos weren't widely known. She says in the 1960s, high school
students used to splash in the creek.

"So students would get out here in their clothes and their bathing
suits and be all in this water," Houston said.

Davidson Mayor John Woods remembers those days. He and his friends
sometimes played at the mill.

"We even rode our bicycles around to the back of the building once
or twice a week, with a bet of what color the detention pond would
be that day, whether it was asbestos green, or aqua, or white or
some other color you can imagine of asbestos shingles," Woods
recalled.

You could come by with your pickup and get asbestos to fill in
your yard.

"It was carted off to all points in the community ... used in
driveways, as gravel would be used, or used as fill, or landfill,
in areas where yards needed balancing and what-not," Woods said.

HIDDEN DANGER

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, with good insulating
and flame retardant properties. For much of the 20th century, it
was used in many products -- building materials, gaskets,
automotive brake linings. But it has a downside -- if the tiny
fibers are inhaled, asbestos can cause health problems, including
cancer and other deadly lung diseases.

It wasn't until the 1970s that the federal government began to ban
asbestos products.

Robert Kenyon of Charlotte bought the mill in 1976 and leased out
the space, to make a little extra income in his retirement. His
daughter, Cynthia Chirot of Seattle, said it wasn't until
complaints surfaced eight years later that Kenyon realized
asbestos was left behind.

"I do not believe he was aware. There certainly was no disclosure
in the sale.  It just wasn't done back then," Chirot said.

Kenyon was ordered to clean up the mill and cover buried asbestos
with soil or pavement. When he died in 2004, Chirot and her two
siblings inherited the mill. They've been looking for a buyer ever
since. It's prime real estate -- just a block from restaurants and
shops on Davidson's thriving Main Street.

Several developers have shown interest, but nothing has panned
out.

Miller-Valentine Group of Charlotte wants to change that by
building Davidson Depot -- a four-story building with 183
apartments.

But first, they need what's called a "brownfields agreement" with
state environmental officials. It would spell out how the
developers would be required to clean up the asbestos (Iikely by
excavation and removal).

That would help them put a price tag on the work. And it would
limit their future liability.

"You have to go through a bunch of testing to prove that you
understand what's there and then decide on how you feasibly
redevelop it in a safe way that allows that property to be put
back into use," Rulick said.

Miller-Valentine has developed similar "brownfields" in Charlotte,
and developer Charlie Rulick said they've learned: "The land has
to be developed properly and safely first before we can put
something new and better on top of it."

LACK OF TRUST

Still, neighbors worry about disturbing the site. Iretha Kerns's
family owns a house behind the old plant. She attended a December
meeting with state and federal environmental officials to learn
more.

"There's a lot of apprehension, nervousness, and just fear," Kerns
said.

Fear about what?

"Fear that the asbestos underground is going to become airborne
and they'll start having problems again."

It's not just the asbestos. It's lingering resentment about
injustices, like how Carolina Asbestos -- and the law -- treated
relatives who got sick. Some complained of illnesses as far back
as the 1930s. But state courts often sided with the company and
denied compensation for asbestos-related illnesses.

It's also Davidson's growth. The population has more than doubled
in 25 years, and new development is squeezing the mill
neighborhood on all sides, says Jan Blodgett, Davidson College's
archivist and a local historian.

"It's their childhood play space ... it's the fear of
gentrification, higher taxes coming on top of them.  So very
complicated," Blodgett said.

And it keeps getting more complicated. At meetings this fall,
people told stories of asbestos in their yards. So the EPA began
testing the soil. As of late December, significant asbestos levels
had been found in 17 yards. Officials say that could grow to 25 or
30. Residents have been told not to mow, rake or do other yard
work, which could send asbestos into the air.

MOVING FORWARD

Old fears have kept some neighbors from having their yards tested,
says the EPA's Ken Rhame.

"There are a few residents that we've talked to that originally
thought that we were there to try to take their property or claim
that we were gonna condemn their property," he said.

Rhame says they're starting to come around, after they see
neighbors getting help and find out the EPA is paying for the yard
cleanups.

He said the EPA plans to hire a contractor to remove and replace
contaminated soil in neighbors' yards, with the EPA's Superfund
picking up the cost.

Some neighbors still aren't sure about the development. One, Tim
Mascara, started a "save the Linden mill" website
(http://www.savelindenmill.com/).He worries about the safety of
removing the asbestos and the loss of history.

"If it's turned into a four-story building you're losing a touch
of history, you're losing stories of Davidson," said Mascara, who
lives across the street from the asbestos hill. "I live on the
West Side, and how many of our residents, their families worked at
that mill."

Mascara would like to see a developer re-use the old mill in a
development, as has happened in some Charlotte neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, some current tenants of the Metrolina Warehouse, like
The Rumor Mill home furnishings market, are worried about losing
their businesses.

Janie Slusarick opened Rumor Mill with husband Scot 3« years ago.
If the mill is re-developed, they'll be out of business.

"We would like to see the building stay," she said. "We hope they
(the developers) back out, like all the others did."

'THEY LISTENED'

As Ruby Houston looks out at "asbestos hill" from her front porch,
there's a sense of relief. She believes officials are finally
listening.

"I saw the concern on their faces. They acknowledged, this is a
problem. This is not good," Houston said.

In the coming weeks, the DEQ is expected to approve plans for a
new temporary cap over the asbestos at the mill. And in the next
few months, the EPA will start cleaning up contaminated homes --
for free.

All this will happen regardless of whether the developer moves
ahead with building Davidson Depot. That final decision depends on
whether the yet-to-be-determined cost of a permanent cleanup makes
the project financially feasible.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Discusses Final Cleanup Plan for BoRit Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Celona, writing for The Times Herald, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency has presented its proposed long-
term remedy for the area -- a method that caps the asbestos in
place -- and residents now have the chance to weigh in on the
proposal.

The 38-acre BoRit site, which lies in Ambler Borough and Upper
Dublin and Whitpain townships bounded by the Wissahickon Creek and
Butler and Maple avenues, was used by the Keasbey & Mattison Co.
as a disposal site for asbestos containing material for the better
part of a century. In April 2009, the site was added to the EPA's
Superfund National Priorities List, opening the door for federal
funding to remediate the site.

EPA efforts began at the site to eliminate the immediate risk and
prevent any asbestos from moving off site, following by a several-
year remedial investigation/feasibility study process that
examined potential ways to address the presence of asbestos at
BoRit.

That work all culminated last month, when the EPA released its
proposed remedial action plan for the site.

The public now has until March 3 to comment on the plan before the
EPA issues its record of decision.

The EPA held a public meeting to discuss the proposed plan and
take residents' comments at Ambler Borough Hall Jan. 10.

Jill Lowe, the remedial project manager for BoRit, went over the
plan, along with other options the EPA explored.

"Our preferred cleanup option is the capping option," Lowe said.
"We want to stabilize the site."

Under the capping method, in most places on the site, geotextile
material is placed atop the asbestos, topped with 2 feet of clean
soil, then topsoil and finally a vegetative cover, according to
Lowe. In other places, the clean soil level would be 10 to 15
inches deep but would also be topped with concrete cable mats,
while in other spots there would be 2 to 10 feet of clean soil
topped by a clay liner.

This is the process that was followed during the initial response
at the site to prevent asbestos from moving off site, so the
majority of the work has already been completed, according to
Lowe.

Once the capping work is completed on the site, the proposed plan
requires post-construction sampling, long-term maintenance, long-
term monitoring and five-year reviews by the EPA, according to
Lowe.

"We're leaving the waste in place, so we have to do five-year
reviews to ensure that human health and safety are protected," she
said.

The long-term maintenance for the site consists of quarterly site
inspections, annual sampling, creating protocols for routine
maintenance and repairs and establishing extreme weather
procedures, according to Lowe.

The plan would also limit potential future uses for the site after
the EPA completes its work, with the parcels at BoRit only being
allowed to be recreational/open space uses, Lowe said. Any
potential redevelopment would require coordination with the EPA
and Pennsylvania DEP.

Whitpain Township, which owns the Whitpain Park section of BoRit -
- one of three individual parcels -- has stated its intentions to
reopen the park parcel for recreational use. The other two parcels
are owned by the Wissahickon Waterfowl Preserve and the former
Kane Core company.

The proposed capping option would cost a total of $27 million,
according to EPA officials. However, approximately $25 million of
that work has already been completed at the site, leaving $2
million for sampling and other future costs.

The EPA selected capping as its preferred method after examining a
total of five options for the site, according to Lowe. The other
four options were taking no action (which came with a $165,000
price tag), excavating the asbestos containing material and
disposing of it off site ($269 million), heating and
solidification of the waste ($257 million) and creating a high-
temperature chemical treatment plant at the site ($267 million).

The excavation method would have called for removing all of the
soil down to bedrock, shipping approximately 70,000 truckloads of
asbestos and then brining in clean fill, according to Lowe.

The solidification method calls for placing electrodes in the
ground and heating up the waste until it forms a glasslike
material, but that method has not been proven to the level needed
to be to applied at BoRit, Lowe said.

The final option called for building a treatment plant at BoRit,
digging up all the waste and running it through the plant to
create a "lava-like" material, which would then be placed back at
the site, according to Lowe.

The EPA preferred the capping method because of its long-term
effectiveness, short time frame, minimal disruption of the
asbestos and cost, Lowe said.

"The capping is protective of human health and the environment,"
she said.

Other alternatives were rejected because they would have presented
a significant asbestos exposure risk, high costs, feasibility
concerns and the long-term impact on the community, as they would
have taken 10 to 20 years to complete, according to Lowe.

During the public comment portion, about a dozen residents asked
questions and expressed their views. Some spoke in favor of the
plan, while others expressed concerns about the health and
environmental impacts of capping while not advocating for another
option.

Some questioned how the cap would be maintained over the years and
how any changes at the site would be addressed.

"Are we setting ourselves up for continuous care?" Ambler Borough
Council member Frank DeRuosi asked.

"By capping, you're signing on for a perpetual maintenance plan.
There's no ending," Steve Maroldo said.

Lowe said five-year reviews are incorporated into the plan to
address those concerns about long-term maintenance.

Other residents' concerns involved how storms would impact the
site and how the capping method would effect the Wissahickon
Creek.

The proposed plan is available for public review online at
epa.gov/ambler or semspub.epa.gov, as well as at the Ambler branch
of the Wissahickon Valley Public Library and the EPA public
reading room.

Comments on the plan may be submitted by email to
R3_Boritcomments@epa.gov or mailed to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3 Office, Attn: Jill Lowe, 1650 Arch
St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unpaid Wages Allegations Hit Cleanup Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Daley, writing for The EyeShare, reported that federal
prosecutors are investigating an asbestos-removal company active
in the Boston area to see whether the firm withheld wages and
benefits from workers, according to people familiar with the
matter.

The case is part of widening U.S. Justice Department activity and
private civil action targeting asbestos-removal and demolition
contractors for alleged worker mistreatment amid a construction
and renovation boom in Massachusetts.

Registered asbestos-abatement jobs in the state totaled 25,660 in
2016, up 64 percent in five years, as construction materials in
many older buildings being torn apart for renovation often contain
the carcinogenic mineral.

Within the last two years, two criminal cases and three civil
lawsuits have been brought in U.S. District Court in Boston
alleging companies are cheating asbestos-removal or demolition
workers on wage and benefits payments. In one of the cases, the
owner of an asbestos-abatement firm pleaded guilty to federal
charges after prosecutors alleged he paid workers in cash to avoid
employment taxes and payments he owed to union benefit funds.

The asbestos and demolition workforce has a large number of
immigrants, some of whom have told The Eye and WBUR that they
believe they are being exposed to asbestos without adequate
protective breathing masks or other required safeguards.
Inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to lung cancer and other
potentially deadly diseases.

On the wage front, a federal investigation is looking at Absolute
Environmental, a Salem, New Hampshire-based company, according to
industry insiders, including one former worker who testified
before a federal grand jury in Boston hearing evidence in the
case.

Union benefit-fund officials sued Absolute Environmental Inc. and
a second company, Absolute Environmental Contractors Inc., in
2015. The officials alleged a scheme in which Absolute
Environmental's owners used the second company as a front to pay
workers less and avoid making benefits payments mandated by a
collective bargaining agreement.

Proceedings in the lawsuit have been put on hold until May as the
parties try to reach an agreement.

"Absolute was cheating me," said Jean Jimenez, 27, of Methuen, who
said he went before the grand jury about nine months ago, and was
asked about the company and how his wages were paid there.

Two other people with direct knowledge of the investigation say it
is ongoing. The U.S. attorney's office in Boston did not respond
to several requests for comment.

Absolute Environmental said in a statement that it "is a highly
regarded business which operates in a lawful and responsible
manner.'' It called the union lawsuit "without merit" and said "it
looks forward to vindicating its position in court." The statement
said the company wouldn't comment on "speculation about government
investigations."

Jimenez, a union member, said he worked for the company for about
two years and quit in 2015 because he wasn't always paid the wages
he was due.

Red Check, Green Check

According to Jimenez and the union lawsuit, he was paid $34.75 an
hour from Absolute Environmental for removing asbestos-filled
floor adhesive from the Prudential Center in Boston and for
abatement work at a power plant in Salem, Massachusetts.

But the lawsuit said that in his next paycheck he was paid $17 an
hour for similar work in a South Boston warehouse. In both cases,
Jimenez said he picked up a company truck at the same Absolute
location in Salem, New Hampshire, before heading to work.

"They think people are not going to talk" and "that they are just
grateful to work," said Jimenez, who estimated he is owed at least
$5,000 in back pay. He said union wages were paid with a red
check, and nonunion wages were paid with a green check.

In a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination, 11 workers have accused another contractor,
Skinner Demolition, of underpaying them and providing them with
inadequate asbestos protection.

Scott Connolly, an attorney for Skinner Services Inc., which runs
the demolition company, said the allegations in the MCAD complaint
were unfounded.

One of the complainants in the case, Marco Lopez, is also a
plaintiff in a separate federal lawsuit filed in November against
Skinner and its owners for alleged non-payment of wages. According
to the lawsuit, Lopez drove workers between job sites and
Skinner's headquarters without pay, sometimes up to three hours
each way, and also had weekly deductions taken from his checks for
"uniform washing" that was done only two or three times in 18
months.

"We don't get paid for all the work we do," Lopez said.

Skinner and its attorney didn't return requests for comment on the
federal lawsuit and Lopez's allegations.

Disputes about wages and working conditions are hardly unique to
the asbestos abatement industry. But many asbestos workers are
vulnerable because they have entered the country illegally, and
are typically in no position to complain or switch jobs, according
to workers and labor advocates.

There are more than 3,400 asbestos-removal workers licensed in the
state, and demolition companies employ thousands of others who can
also confront the carcinogen on the job.

"Because of the nature of asbestos work, the industry uses the
most vulnerable workers," who fear deportation, according to Tom
Juravich, professor of labor studies at University of
Massachusetts Amherst.

Union Allegations

The U.S. attorney's office in Boston indicted the New Hampshire
owners of Air Quality Experts Inc. and AQE Inc. in January 2016,
alleging a scheme that cheated workers out of about $2 million in
payments to health, pension and other employee benefit funds.
Union officials who run the funds filed a federal civil lawsuit
with similar allegations against the companies in 2015.

Both the indictment and civil case allege that AQE signed an
agreement with a local union in 2005 promising to pay union wages
to all its employees. According to the lawsuit and indictment, AQE
owners Christopher and Kimberly Thompson also own Air Quality
Experts, which allegedly paid workers below their entitled rates
and didn't contribute toward their pension and other funds. The
indictment also said some employees weren't paid for all hours
worked.

Owners are allowed to have two companies that do similar work, one
union and one nonunion. But case law and construction industry
attorneys say they must be run as separate organizations with
separate employees, operations and management. The criminal
indictment alleges that AQE and Air Quality Experts were
essentially operating as a single organization.

Howard Cooper, the Thompsons' attorney, said that prosecuting the
couple "is unjust and absurd." He added that they "would like to
know where that $2 million is because they don't have it.''

Cooper said Air Quality Experts existed for more than two decades
as a nonunion shop and always paid nonunion wages. AQE was formed
later to give union workers, and the business, more opportunity,
but that did not require the Thompsons to start paying non-
unionized workers union wages, according to Cooper.

In pretrial proceedings, U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris
said she had "deep concerns" about the case because it wasn't
clear workers were being defrauded, according to hearing
transcripts.

In a separate federal case, Ronald Mulcahey, the owner of Andover-
based Wing Environmental, pleaded guilty in October to tax evasion
and making false statements to union benefit plans covered by the
Employee Retirement and Income Security Act.

Mulcahey paid asbestos abatement workers in cash to avoid benefits
payments and employment-tax payments to the government, according
to the U.S. attorney's office. He is scheduled to be sentenced in
March.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Pres. Protests Choice of EPA Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which serves
as a global leader in ending asbestos exposure through education,
advocacy, and community; issued the following statement from ADAO
President and Co-Founder Linda Reinstein, opposing the
confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as EPA
Administrator. The statement was preceded by a letter to the U.S.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee urging the same.

"ADAO opposes the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General (AG)
Scott Pruitt as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator. We are deeply concerned that he lacks the
qualifications and understanding to lead the EPA and urge the
Senate to deny his confirmation.

"The EPA is paramount in protecting the American public and our
environment from toxic and destructive pollutants -- like deadly
asbestos -- yet the President-elect's nominee to run this agency
vehemently disagrees. Pruitt is openly pro-industry, anti-
regulation, and anti-science. He has no formal training, education
or professional experience in any of the physical sciences. His
penchant for siding with industry is of significant concern to the
public health and environmental communities. The asbestos industry
has dumped millions into funding 'independent research' that
claims asbestos to be safe. This junk science -- aided by weak
chemical regulation laws -- foiled a 1989 attempt by the EPA to
ban the known human carcinogen.

"This summer, Congress delivered a huge win to public health when
it passed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), an historic
bipartisan and bicameral bill that finally empowered the EPA to
evaluate and regulate toxic chemicals. However, a Pruitt-led EPA
would be more susceptible than ever to industry-backed junk
science that could derail progress toward meaningful chemical
regulations.

"ADAO urges the U.S. Senate to vote against confirming AG Scott
Pruitt's nomination. America needs an EPA Administrator with the
education, understanding, willingness to stand up against
corporate interests in order to ensure the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) reform is implemented based on the best
possible science, in the best interest of public health and the
environment. Scott Pruitt's background and experience prove he is
unqualified to serve this role."

About the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is a global
leader in combining education, advocacy, and community initiatives
to prevent and end asbestos exposure. ADAO seeks to raise public
awareness about the dangers of asbestos, advocate for an asbestos
ban, and protect asbestos victims' civil rights. For more
information, visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org. ADAO, a
registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, does not make legal
referrals.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is a registered 501(c) (3)
nonprofit organization
"United for Asbestos Disease Awareness, Education, Advocacy, and
Community Support"
1525 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 318
Redondo Beach, California 90278
(310) 251-7477
www.AsbestosDiseaseAwareness.org

Contacts
Media:
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)
Sara Tiano, 310-251-7477
Media Relations
sara@asbestosdiseaseawareness.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Illegally Dumped Near Primary School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charli Shield, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that a large
pile of asbestos has been found dumped in a laneway, close to a
primary school in Sydney's west.

Residents found the asbestos in Treuer Lane in Yagoona.

Police were alerted and cordoned off the laneway.

A spokesperson from the City of Canterbury Bankstown Council said
the waste was dumped overnight in the residential area, which is
less than 500 metres from Yagoona Public School.

"Approximately eight tonnes of fibro asbestos cement sheeting was
dumped," the spokesperson said.

The council said it had "commissioned a contractor to safely
remove the asbestos".

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the council are
investigating who is responsible.

"[We are] talking to witnesses and securing potential surveillance
footage as evidence," the council said.

Airborne asbestos is a health hazard and the maximum penalty for
an individual for wilfully dumping asbestos-contaminated waste is
a $1 million fine and/or seven years in jail, while the maximum
fine for a corporation is $5 million, the EPA said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Mishap Reveals Asbestos at SCC
------------------------------------------------------------
Ritchie Starnes, writing for The Stanley News & Press, reported
that the discovery of asbestos inside SCC's signature building has
led to its closure until May.

A construction mishap during the summer led to the discovery of
asbestos in a glue compound used beneath the tile floor in the
Patterson building on the campus of Stanly Community College.
Further inspection also found asbestos in a compound inside the
joints of the structure's walls.

Consequently, offices and services located in Patterson were
relocated to other parts of the campus in the interest of safety.
Predominately an administrative building, most of the relocation
pertained to faculty and staff. Patterson, constructed in the
'70s, is also home to the college's business office.

No classes, however, have been canceled as a result. Instead,
classes were moved to other parts of campus.

"Students come first, then faculty and staff," SCC President John
Enamait said. "It was not a convenient time for faculty and staff
to move out of that building at the end of the semester. It was a
burden."

Enamait applauded his faculty and staff since they were forced to
absorb the brunt of relocation, much that did not occur until late
into the semester after more asbestos was found.

Other than a few nooks in the campus' oldest building, the second
semester of the school year at SCC has been without the use of the
Patterson building, or the main focal point of the campus that
offers occupants a scenic view from atop a hill on the campus.
It's also the most visible structure, which is the first building
that greets visitors as they ascend College Drive.

Enamait had been hired as SCC's newest president, but had not
arrived on campus to start, when he received a telephone call from
administration that a contractor working in Patterson
inadvertently caused a leak on the second level before leaving on
July 29.  The water ran throughout the building over the weekend,
flooding the building.

"The bottom floor sustained significant damage because of the
leak," Enamait said.

Once workers began to take up the damaged floor tile, asbestos was
detected. That discovery led to further investigation with more
asbestos found inside the walls.

"That pretty much stopped everything because safety is paramount,"
Enamait said, referring to the ongoing construction and campus-
related activities inside Patterson.

"It took us a little while with the investigation," he added.

Ironically, what began as the installation of new flooring and set
to conclude July 29 set in motion a crisis with no immediate
timetable.

In addition to ridding Patterson of asbestos, officials decided to
use the disruption as an opportunity for a face-lift that will
ultimately make the building more efficient and at no additional
cost to taxpayers.

Insurance is expected to cover the cost of the remediation of the
building.

"It's given us an opportunity to do some things that we ordinarily
would not have been able to do," Enamait said.

As long as asbestos remains undisturbed and encapsulated, such as
beneath tile or inside walls, it is not harmful. Once asbestos is
exposed and disturbed particles risk becoming airborne, Enamait
said.

David Ezzell, environmental supervisor for Stanly County,
concurred with the assessment.

"Everything I have read and heard in various training is that
asbestos is not hazardous as long as the material containing
asbestos (floor tiles, insulation, exterior siding, etc.) are
intact and remain undisturbed," Ezzell said. "Fibers are released
and become airborne during construction, renovation and demolition
activities and that is when they become a hazard."

Stanly's building codes are strict in terms of the presence of
asbestos.

"Our codes require before the construction process you have to
have abatement," said David Harrington, building codes enforcement
director.

About asbestos

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral previously lauded for
its versatility, recognized for its heat resistance, tensile
strength and insulating properties, and used for everything from
fire-proof vests to home and commercial construction. It was woven
into fabric and mixed with cement.

Asbestos is a known cause of mesothelioma cancer and is banned in
more than 50 countries (not the U.S.), and its use has been
dramatically restricted in others.

More than 75 different types of jobs in America have been known to
expose workers to asbestos. Occupations in the construction
industry have been hit the hardest, according to the National
Institute for Occupational Health and Safety.

While the majority of asbestos-related illnesses each year can be
traced to occupational exposure, according to the World Health
Organization -- there are others at risk, too.

Many exposures are second-hand exposures, families of workers who
inadvertently bring the deadly fibers home with them, leaving
those around them vulnerable, too.

Homes and apartments built before 1980 often are filled with
asbestos, needing only normal wear and tear with age to dislodge
the fibers and send them airborne. Asbestos can be found in floor
tiles, roofs, furnaces, plumbing, appliances, fireplaces and
window caulking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Hits Handyman with GBP1,400 Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
Lichfield Live reported that a handyman has been fined GBP480 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP1,000 after removing asbestos boards
from an office in Lichfield.

Daniel Hepple, 35 and from Tamworth, pleaded guilty to breaching
the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The court heard that Wetenhall Properties had instructed him to
remove the asbestos insulation boards from some internal doors of
its offices at Energy House on Lombard Street.

But as they were removed in what Lichfield District Council
described as an unsafe manner by an unlicensedperson, the work
would have resulted in harmful asbestos fibres being released into
the air.

The court fined Hepple GBP480 and ordered him to pay court costs
of GBP1,000.

Councillor Colin Greatorex, Lichfield District Council's Cabinet
Member for Housing & Health, said: "We brought this case to court
because protecting health and safety in the work place is so
important, and we take breaches in it very seriously.

"It goes to show that everyone must take personal responsibility
for their actions, even if carrying out instructions at work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Reitz Union
--------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Dickson, writing for Alligator.org, reported that the
asbestos in the Reitz Union will be gone following removal
procedures.

Renovations on the lower level of the student union began in
October, said Eddie Daniels, executive director of the building.
At the beginning of renovations, including to the Arts & Crafts
Center and the Student Government Computer Lab, routine checks
found asbestos in the floor and the ceiling. The Computer Lab is
open; the Arts & Crafts Center is not.

"With every project we do, we go through a process of testing for
hazardous materials and determining if they need to be removed,"
Daniels said.

He said it wasn't a surprise that there was asbestos in the
building because of the materials used in construction during the
time it was built.

The removal will cost $25,000, UF spokesperson Janine Sikes wrote
in an email.

The lower level is one of four areas that were renovated apart
from the $75 million expansion completed last Spring, Daniels
said.

The total cost for the lower-level renovations is $885,000, funded
with revenues from rents and other business services as well as
support from SG, Sikes said.

Daniels said renovations will be completed later this semester.

Sarah Nguyen, 18, said she was unaware of the asbestos in the
building. She thought the hazard would have been removed a long
time ago.

"Knowing it now, it makes me a little scared to go down there. But
I'm still gonna go down there, it's just unnerving I guess," the
UF health science freshman said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Take-Home" Asbestos is Duty of Care in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Harrison, Esq. -- nharrison@mgmlaw.com -- at Manion Gaynor
& Manning LLP, in an article for Law360.com, wrote that in
December, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two
coordinated "take-home" asbestos exposure cases, in which it held
that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care
to protect employees' household members from exposure to asbestos
through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers
on their work clothing and/or persons, also referred to as "take-
home" exposure plaintiffs.

The court noted that the duty of care existed regardless of
whether the plaintiff states a claim for general negligence or
premises liability. This ruling helps clarify the law in
California on the duty of care owed to "take-home" exposure
plaintiffs, and in doing so further establishes California as a
plaintiff-friendly state in asbestos litigation.

The court's opinion was premised on two "take-home" asbestos
cases. In one matter, the plaintiff filed suit against various
defendants alleging that they exposed him to asbestos and caused
his peritoneal mesothelioma.

Among the defendants was Pneumo Abex LLC. The plaintiff alleged
that his uncle worked and was exposed to asbestos in a Pneumo Abex
plant, which he then took home on his clothes and person and to
which the plaintiff was subsequently exposed to during the 1970s.

In the other matter, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit
against various defendants, alleging that their mother passed away
from mesothelioma after also having been exposed to asbestos.
Among other defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that BNSF Railway
Company employed and exposed the decedent's husband to asbestos
fibers, which he then brought home to the household he shared with
the decedent, thereby exposing her to asbestos as well.

The Supreme Court set out to determine whether an employer or
premises owner using asbestos has a duty to protect individuals
secondarily exposed to asbestos through the clothing and persons
of individuals either employed by the defendant or on the
defendant's premises.

After evaluating the facts and law, the court held that "[w]here
it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their clothing, or
personal effects will act as vectors carrying asbestos from the
premises to household members, employers have a duty to take
reasonable care to prevent this means of transmission," and that
the duty applies to employers and "also applies to premises owners
who use asbestos on their property, subject to any exceptions and
affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners."

However, the court noted that this duty extends only to members of
a worker's household, regardless of whether they are a relative.

In reaching this holding, the California Supreme Court first noted
that California Civil Code section 1714 "establishes a general
duty to exercise ordinary care in one's activities," thereby
meaning that the issue is not whether a new duty should be
established, but rather whether the court should create an
exception such that employers and premises owners would not owe a
duty of reasonable care towards a workers' household members
secondarily exposed to asbestos.

California law requires that courts consider the factors outlined
in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968) to evaluate whether
a situation warrants a duty of care. Under Rowland, a Court must
consider 1) whether the injury in question is foreseeable; 2) the
degree of certainty that the plaintiff has suffered an injury; 3)
the closeness between the defendant's conduct and the injury
suffered; 4) moral blame of the defendant; 5) whether a duty of
care would prevent future harm; 6) the burden to the defendant;
and 7) availability of insurance for the type of injury suffered.

After considering all of these factors, the Supreme Court
concluded that the injury suffered by the plaintiffs, i.e.
mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos, was a
foreseeable result in light of the OSHA standards in place at the
time of the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to asbestos, as well as
other publications during that time frame documenting the risks of
asbestos exposure.

Accordingly, the court held that because an increased risk of
contracting mesothelioma was a characteristic harm resulting from
the use of asbestos-containing materials, and because it can be
reasonably assumed that a worker exposed to asbestos during the
workday returns home at the end of the day, it was reasonably
foreseeable that such workers would expose their household members
to the asbestos fibers they worked with and around, thereby
increasing their risk of contracting mesothelioma.

While the defendants argued that there was no scientific consensus
regarding the risks of asbestos during the time in which the
plaintiffs were allegedly exposed, the court noted that there is
no authority for the proposition that a scientific consensus is
required to establish foreseeability in the context of duty
analysis.

In addition to the foreseeability of the injuries sustained by the
plaintiffs in this case, the court further held that public policy
considerations also supported a finding that employers and
premises owners owed a duty of care to a worker's household
members.

The court noted that the defendants financially benefited from
their business activities involving the use of asbestos, and that
preventing workers' household members' from being exposed to
asbestos would not have imposed "a greater burden than preventing
exposure and injury to the workers themselves."

Despite recognizing a duty of care owed to individuals secondarily
exposed to asbestos, the defense was able to successfully argue
that a blanket duty could lead to tenuous claims by an unlimited
number of plaintiffs, thereby overburdening defendants and the
courts.

In light of this concern, the court held that this duty of care
only extends "to members of a workers' household, i.e., persons
who live with the worker and are thus foreseeably in close and
sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of
time," thereby limiting "potential plaintiffs to an identifiable
category of persons who, as a class, are most likely to have
suffered a legitimate, compensable harm."

The court further held that this duty extends to both employer
defendants as well as defendants sued under premises liability
theory.

While the defense argued that recognizing a duty of care owed to
"take-home" plaintiffs when a defendant is sued under premises
liability "would take the 'premises' out of premises liability and
unsettle the tort law that applies to all property owners," the
court disagreed, noting that California courts have repeatedly
held that a landowner's duty of care to avoid exposing others to
risk of injury is not limited to injuries that occur on the
premises, but rather extends to risks of injury off the
landowner's premises, if the property "is maintained in such a
manner as to expose persons to an unreasonable risk of injury off-
site."

Given that the plaintiffs' injuries were allegedly sustained
through contact with asbestos fibers originating from the
defendants' worksites, the court felt a duty of care was
appropriate.

This decision will undoubtedly have many repercussions. While
California is already a popular jurisdiction for asbestos
litigation, this holding will likely encourage more asbestos
lawsuits, given that this holding will help shield many plaintiffs
from demurrers and summary judgment motions, thereby increasing
plaintiffs' bargaining power.

This can subsequently result in higher settlements and larger
plaintiffs' verdicts. However, the court's holding did offer some
limitations of which defendants should be mindful:

   * Household Foreseeability Limitation - The court established
only a duty of care for members of the same household as
individuals exposed to asbestos in their workplace. The Supreme
Court was unwilling to extend the duty of care to all individuals
who may have been exposed to asbestos through an employer's
clothing and person, as the court noted that while it is
foreseeable for members of an individual's household to be exposed
to asbestos from a workplace, it is less foreseeable for
individuals not living in the same household as the worker to be
exposed to measureable amounts of asbestos.

   * Premises Defendant Exceptions - The court noted that while
this duty extends to premises liability defendants, various fact-
specific defenses may still be applicable. For instance, premises
defendants are not liable to third parties for injuries caused by
a contractor's negligence in performing work, based on a lack of
control, unless the premises owner is aware of a hazardous
condition the contractor did not know about and was unaware of.
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal. 4th 659, 675 (2005).

   * Product Defendants - The court noted that product defendants
are distinguishable from employer or premises defendants based on
the level of control the defendant has over the use of asbestos:
"[T]ake-home asbestos cases against employers or premises owners
allege that the defendants had direct knowledge as to how fibers
were being released and circulated within their facilities and
failed to prevent those employees from leaving workplaces owned or
controlled by the defendants with asbestos on their clothing or
persons. Product liability defendants, by contrast, have no
control over the movement of asbestos fibers once the products
containing those fibers are sold." Accordingly, the court suggests
that this holding does not extend to product manufacturers, as
their control ends when the product is sold, thereby making any
"take-home" exposure attenuated and difficult to foresee.

While the ultimate repercussions of this decision remain to be
seen, defendants should be mindful that it only helps to further
solidify California as a popular jurisdiction for asbestos
litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Tenants Move Out Due to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
KGNS.tv reported that residents of an apartment complex are
speaking out after they say they were lied to by management.

Around 40 families at the Seville Apartments will now have to look
for a new home.

The families say they received an envelope full of documents with
a notice to leave.

Many of them say it will be difficult to move because of their
financial situation.

Amalia Garza is one of dozens of tenants being forced out of the
Seville Apartments after being handed documents revealing large
amounts of asbestos on the property.

Garza says she was expecting a letter to relocate to another unit
while they were remodeling, not a letter to vacate the property.

Garza says she's not mad about the asbestos but mad about how she
says she was lied to by the management, putting her and her
neighbor's health at risk.

The apartments are owned by the Laredo Horizon Development and has
provided several options to its tenants, including rental
applications to other units around town with a fee.

Garza and her neighbors have until February 17th to vacate the
apartments.

KGNS reached out to Laredo Horizon Development for a comment on
the situation but have not heard back from them.

Most of them say they are worried their conditions may get worse
if they remain on the property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lancashire Man Dies from Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Citizen reported that a 93-YEAR-OLD man found dead at a
nursing home died of asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

Clifford Naylor, of Manor House in Bridge Road, Chatburn, died on
November 7, last year.

The inquest at the Blackburn Enterprise Centre heard Mr Naylor
worked as a sheet metal worker in Leeds in the 1950s where he was
exposed to asbestos.

In a statement read out by coroner Michael Singleton, written by
Mr Naylor before his death, he said he worked in a warehouse that
contained asbestos.

The inquest heard Mr Naylor had been fit and well at the start of
the year, but began to feel unwell in June.

Mr Naylor's condition began to deteriorate gradually.

Mr Singleton said the medical cause of death was mesothelioma.

He said: "I state that with the evidence of Clifford Taylor, the
medical cause of his death was mesothelioma, as during his working
life he was exposed to asbestos.

"I pass on my sincere condolences to the family and his wife,
Gladys Naylor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Asbestos Victims to Get $25MM From State
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Byron, writing for Courthouse News, reported that calling the
situation "a mass toxic exposure," a Montana state court judge
approved a $23 million settlement for 1,087 people or estates that
claimed state officials knew asbestos from a Libby mine was making
them sick but didn't inform them of the hazards from mining,
processing and transferring of vermiculite-related products.

The latest settlement involves people who lived in Libby and
Lincoln County in northwestern Montana who either did not work at
the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine or lived with someone who
did. It comes five years after a judge in Helena approved a $43
million settlement for more than 1,400 miners and their families,
bringing the total to $66 million paid out by the state's tort
claims fund and insurance companies since 2011.

The Libby mine produced vermiculite, which was processed at a
Libby plant for use as insulation and shipped across the nation.
Asbestos is a byproduct of vermiculite, and its lethal dust often
blanketed the greater Libby community, 40 miles south of the
Canada border. The vermiculite was also used as fill for the high
school track, and miners often carried it home on their clothes.

The Libby asbestos is particularly harmful, with needle-like
fibers that lodge deep in peoples' lungs making it difficult to
breathe, and in some cases causing cancer.

"It gets embedded when you breathe and move back and forth; it's
like a cactus and creates scarring of the inside of the lungs,"
said Dale Cockrell, a private attorney who represented Montana in
the lawsuit.

The cancer caused by the asbestos -- mesothelioma -- cannot be
cured, with people dying within two years of diagnosis and
sometimes within months. The asbestos-related lung diseases are
progressive, and patients usually need supplemental oxygen just to
survive.

"This isn't a glamorous or pain-free way to die," Judge John
Kutzman noted, in approving the settlement amount. "You have a
group of plaintiffs who are either going to die, or live out the
rest of their lives in painful and distressing circumstances."

Libby was deemed a federal Superfund site in 2002.

State health officials occasionally inspected the vermiculite
beginning in the early 1940s until it closed in the 1990s but did
little research in the town, according to Cockrell. During that
time, reports generated from the inspections were shared with the
mine and unions but not with the community.

"The issue is whether the state had a duty not just to miners but
to the community members," Cockrell said. "If there's no duty, the
state is excused. If there is a duty, there's tremendous exposure
for the state of Montana."

The 89 lawsuits filed since the 2011 settlement were consolidated
into two cases, called the "Jones" and "Backen" cases. The 826
plaintiffs in the Jones case will split at least $18 million, and
possibly an additional $5 million based on a pending lawsuit with
the one-time state insurer National Indemnity Co. Another $6
million will be split among 261 plaintiffs in the Backen case,
with the possibility of an additional $6.2 million from the
indemnity company.

Tom Lewis, who represented the Backen clients, noted the money
won't be divided evenly since some people are sicker than others.
Instead, they've worked out formulas generally based on lung
capacity tests, age and illness, and shared the payout information
among the plaintiffs.

Both Lewis and Roger Sullivan, who represented the Jones clients,
will receive about 33 percent of the settlement. Judge Kutzman
said that amount seemed fair, if not a little low.

Lewis noted that the Backen cases were the only ones he worked on
for the past five years, and he retired once it became clear the
settlement would be reached.

Sullivan is continuing to file a few additional cases; the
settlement only addresses those filed by June 2016.

               Settlement Won't Rid Physical Pain

Andrew Schneider, writing for Missoulian.com, reported that a $25
million settlement will do nothing to eliminate the physical pain
suffered by more than 100 people awarded the money from the state
of Montana for its secrecy in not informing people in Lincoln
County that they were being exposed to high levels of asbestos
contaminating a vermiculite mine near the tiny town of Libby.

The agreement reached is the second major payout the state has
made because in the 1950s and 1960s, its mine and safety
inspections failed to warn miners, their families and residents of
the communities in the northwest corner of the state that they
were all at risk from enormously high levels of asbestos-ladened
dust spewing from the mine.

Five years ago, in an identical suit, the state paid out $43
million to another 1,000 plaintiffs whose symptoms of asbestos-
caused disease had surfaced by that time.

Hundreds of pages of mine safety reports reviewed by Lee
Newspapers detailed that workers in all areas of the sprawling pit
mine were receiving enormous exposure to asbestos fibers
contaminating the vermiculite ore being dug out of the terraced
mine. Almost all the reports were clearly marked "Confidential. Do
not release," and were sent only to the mine owners and operators.

Physicians in Libby who were paid in part or fully by the mine
owners, said the results were never shared with them. One
physician, who figured out something was seriously wrong at the
mine, left town after mine operators who routinely contributed to
the community hospital forced the facility to remove the concerned
physician's privileges to treat patients.

It's not as if the inspectors didn't do an adequate job in
identifying the hazards. They had repeatedly called for protective
masks, better ventilating and dust suppression systems, showers
and changing rooms to be made available so contamination from the
mine would not be brought into the worker's homes, thus
endangering the miner's spouses and children.

For the most part, these safety suggestions were ignored. And,
subsequent medical records and death certificates documented the
illness or death of scores of family members.

Few miners, if any, learned of the warnings. Yet the dangers were
clearly visible in the town where kids routinely wrote in the
heavy coating of dust that covered the cars.

The lung-destroying asbestos fiber contaminates the country's
largest supply of vermiculite, a sprawling open pit mine six-miles
outside Libby, in the state's northwest corner. From 1919 until
the mine was closed by W.R. Grace in 1990, it was the source of at
least 85-percent of all vermiculite sold in the United States. But
closed or not, hundreds of deaths and thousands of asbestos-like
diseases were diagnosed throughout the country.

In 1999, after media reports of unexplained deaths and illnesses
in the communities surrounding the mine, the Environmental
Protection Agency flew a hotshot team of emergency responders into
Libby to probe unreported hazard.

Nearly two decades later, EPA has just announced that the cleanup
-- with its almost $600 million price tag -- is weeks from being
officially over.

Today, after almost 17 years, the EPA and its contractors are
still on the ground. Almost 8,000 homes and business in Libby and
nearby Troy have been inspected for asbestos contamination. More
than 2,500 structures, public parks and school grounds have been
cleaned and paid for under Superfund.

But finally, EPA is ready to pull the plug. The agency has tried
to tell the owners of more than 700 properties - still uninspected
and thus uncleaned - that they have less than 90 days to invite
EPA teams on their properties or get stuck with paying for their
own cleanup should it be necessary.

After the cleanup, the EPA reported that asbestos levels in the
air are about 100,000 times lower than when the mine was running
and the agency declared the small town "safe."

There is more litigation on the horizon. A long-awaited trial
between Libby's asbestos victims and BNSF Railway, which
transported vermiculite from the mine to processing sites across
the country, was scheduled to begin new week in Great Falls, but
has been postponed until late spring or summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion Seeks to Expose Deposition Linked to Memo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that a Texas
district judge will hold a hearing on whether to unseal testimony
that could unearth a list of asbestos cases connected with the
arguably infamous "Terrell memo," the widely reported on "cheat
sheet" revealing how Baron & Budd clients were coached up before
depositions.

Not too long ago, freelance journalist Christine Biederman
intervened in a 24-year old asbestos suit filed in Travis County,
seeking to unseal the deposition of renowned plaintiff's attorney
Russell Budd, president and managing shareholder of the Dallas-
based Baron & Budd.

Biederman, who also moonlights as a documentary film producer,
maintains the Baron & Budd asbestos case of Beverly Brown v. Keene
Corp. et al began just as routine as the "thousands of other
asbestos lawsuits filed over the past forty-plus years in the
district courts of Travis County."

"And then, in the fall of 1997, something extraordinary occurred,"
Biederman's motion states.

During a deposition in an unrelated asbestos lawsuit, a Baron &
Budd associate accidentally produced a memo entitled 'Preparing
for Your Deposition,' which appeared to coach the firm's clients
on how to identify asbestos products and exposures that they might
not actually remember and might never have been exposed to in the
first place.

The memo, which Baron & Budd alleged had been written by a
paralegal named Lynell Terrell, was widely distributed by defense
counsel, who began to conduct discovery into whether and how the
memo had been used in hundreds of the firm's asbestos cases,
including Brown v. Keene, the motion states.

Biederman asserts the remaining existing court records in the
Brown asbestos litigation show that at some point Baron & Budd was
apparently ordered to produce a list of cases in which witnesses
had been prepped using the Terrell memo.

Presumably in response, the firm filed a motion to seal court
records on Sept. 29, 1997. Without a hearing, a protective order
was entered that same day, which, among other provisions,
commanded Budd to appear for a deposition in October of 1997.

"Finally, on information and belief, the Order restricted
dissemination of Mr. Budd's deposition to attorneys of record in
this case," the motion to unseal states.

"In so doing, the Court apparently declared Mr. Budd's deposition
'sealed,' although whether the term was used in the Court's
September 29, 1997 Order, on the record during the deposition, or
in both places is unclear."

Biederman believes Budd's deposition is relevant to issues in
ongoing asbestos litigation - a topic she's reported extensively
on in the past and the current subject of her documentary film
project.

"In this case, the deposition of Russell Budd contains information
on how and under what circumstances the law firm of Baron & Budd
used the Terrell memo and others like it, as well as how the memo
was created and the source(s) of the information contained
therein," the motion states.

"As previously discussed, this information touches upon, among
other topics, a 'cheat sheet' used by Baron & Budd's lawyers and
paralegals that appeared, and still appears, to help clients
identify products and exposures that they might not actually
remember and, in fact, might never have been exposed to."

Biederman argues the "extraordinary requirements" of Rule 76a of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were not met.

Rule 76a pertains to the sealing of court records. The rule states
that a document may be sealed if the substantial interest clearly
outweighs presumption of openness and any probable adverse effect
that sealing will have upon the general public health or safety.

She is asking the court to declare Budd's deposition to be a
public record open to the general public.

Cause No. D-1-93-GN-010952


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ann Siddons Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Suz Elvey, writing for Kent Online, reported that a widow has died
of the same disease she believed killed her husband and father
after spending years washing their overalls, which she said were
coated in asbestos.

Ann Siddons, 72, of Rivers Walk, Lenham, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the cancer usually linked to asbestos exposure, in
August 2015.

Before she died she launched an appeal to find other people who
worked at Marley Floor Tile factory in the village during the
1960s and 1970s where her husband Henry, known as Harry, and
father, Walter Ward, were employed.

She and her lawyer were hoping to piece together information about
the working conditions in the factory but Mrs Siddons lost her
battle with cancer at Maidstone Hospital on January 10.

An inquest into her death was opened and adjourned at Archbishop's
Palace, Maidstone, and confirmed the housewife had died from
mesothelioma.

Last year she told our sister paper the Kent Messenger her husband
died of pneumonia in 2009 aged 69, having been forced to retire
due to ill health 14 years earlier, and her father died of cancer
aged 67 in 1981.

Mrs Siddons, who underwent surgery to drain her lungs and lost
more than a stone in weight, said: "They used to set off for work
together and when they came home again in the evening, they were
caked in a fine grey dust.

"My father used to take off his overalls and leave them on his
chair overnight.

"In the morning he'd put them back on and go to work.

"I remember shaking them out of the back door to get the dust off
before washing them and turning out the pockets full of the stuff.

"I must have done that every week for about eight years until
Henry stopped working there."

The inquest will resume in April.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Finds Mesothelioma Incidence in China
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that a study
analyzing mesothelioma incidence rates in Eastern China produced
unusual findings, contrasting significantly from statistics of the
asbestos-related cancer in the U.S.

Reported incidence rates in China are significantly lower than the
U.S.

Only 15 percent of cases examined in the study were linked to
asbestos exposure, the overwhelming cause of mesothelioma in most
countries around the world.

China's results are contradictory for a country which remains one
of the world's largest producers and users of the carcinogenic
mineral.

Other contrasting findings from the study:

   * Peritoneal mesothelioma cases far outnumber the more common
pleural type.

   * Women are diagnosed more often than men, at a rate of 5 to 1.
Median age at diagnosis is more than 20 years younger compared to
U.S. cases.

"We found that the profile of the patient in China is quite
different," co-author Haining Yang, a researcher for the thoracic
oncology program at the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, told
Asbestos.com.

The study published December 2016 in JAMA Oncology.

Low Rate of Asbestos Exposure Among Peritoneal Cases

Researchers reviewed mesothelioma cases from two hospitals in
Eastern China:

   * Zhejiang Cancer Hospital is located in an area where there is
no asbestos industry.

   * Yuyao People's Hospital is in an area that manufactures
textile asbestos.

Out of 52 confirmed diagnoses, peritoneal mesothelioma, which
develops in the protective lining of the abdomen, outnumbered
pleural mesothelioma by a 3-1 ratio with 38 cases. This varies
greatly from diagnoses in the U.S., where pleural cases account
for 75 percent of all mesotheliomas.

The study showed less than half of the peritoneal cases developed
in people exposed to asbestos.

"These findings point to a unique opportunity to investigate other
causes of peritoneal [mesothelioma] in this population, aside from
asbestos," Weimin Mao, lead author and oncologist at Zhejiang
Cancer Hospital, wrote in the study.

Researchers linked an additional five pleural cases and one
testicular mesothelioma case to asbestos.

Mesothelioma Higher in Young Chinese Women

The study points out the "unusual prevalence" of malignant
mesothelioma in Chinese women.

Women accounted for roughly 80 percent of all mesothelioma cases
in the Chinese study.

Historically, mesothelioma is overwhelmingly a male disease,
largely because asbestos exposures occur in male-dominated work
settings such as construction and industrial work.

But that isn't the case in Eastern China, especially among women
with peritoneal, which accounted for the majority of the cases.

Zhejiang and Yuyao hospitals had a similar number of cases of
peritoneal among women (14 and 18, respectively), but vastly
different ratios of patients with a history of asbestos exposure:

Thirteen of 18 peritoneal cases from Yuyao occurred in women
exposed to asbestos.

Only 1 of 14 cases from Zhejiang was associated with exposure.
There were 12 total cases of pleural mesothelioma. Of those, 10
were women and only five had a history of asbestos exposure.

"Except for asbestos exposure, no significant demographic
differences were observed between the [Zhejiang] and Yuyao
People's Hospital, suggesting that asbestos may not be the main
cause of [malignant mesothelioma] in these women," Mao wrote in
the study.

Age was also a differentiating factor in the study.

The median age of a mesothelioma diagnosis was 50.6 years old,
significantly younger than the average age of 72 in the U.S.

Nine cases occurred in people 40 or younger, compared to less than
1 percent in the same age group in the U.S.

The Need for Further Investigation

The incidence rate study in China emphasizes there remains much to
learn about the roles asbestos exposure, genetics and other
factors contribute to mesothelioma and other cancers. It also
shows how these factors might vary in different parts of the
world.

Yang and Dr. Michele Carbone at the University of Hawaii Cancer
Center have pending patent applications on the BRCA1 associated
protein 1 (BAP1), a gene that may play a significant role in a
person's probability of developing mesothelioma.

The study indicates the prevalence of malignant mesothelioma in
different regions of China is still unknown. Reported overall
incidence rates in China is 1.5 cases per million people, or
roughly 2,000 total cases in the world's most populous country.

Past and present asbestos use in China suggests this number could
be far too low.

While China has some regulations in place, the country continues
to use chrysotile -- also known as "white asbestos" -- heavily in
construction materials. According to the China Non-Metallic
Mineral Industry Association, consumption decreased since peaking
in 2012.

Yang noted the cause of the nonasbestos cases in the study needs
further investigation.

"It's all very interesting, but a lot more questions still need to
be answered," Yang said. "That's a great part of doing research,
because there's always more and more questions you want answered
and by the time you answer the questions you improve your
knowledge and then you're more curious to answer the next
question."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newcastle Asbestos Victim Fights for Justice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hutchinson, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that retired
Ken Mulligan is fighting for justice as his life ticks by after
being diagnosed with an incurable cancerous disease.

The former machine operator and assistant technician has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, and he is
appealing for his former colleagues to help expert lawyers to
investigate whether more could have been done by his former
employers to protect him.

Ken, 71, from Fenham, Newcastle, was previously fit and well until
he was diagnosed in July 2016 with mesothelioma, an incurable
asbestos-related cancer affecting the lining of the lungs which
develops as a result of exposure to harmful dust and fibres
decades ago.

Ken has instructed industrial illness experts at Irwin Mitchell to
investigate where he was exposed to asbestos and why he wasn't
provided with adequate safety equipment to protect him during his
employment at various companies.

Together, Ken and his lawyers believe he was exposed to asbestos
at two places throughout his employment history at C A Parsons &
Co Limited, on Shields Road in Heaton, and the General Post Office
(GPO), now Royal Mail, on Pottery Lane.

Great grandad Ken worked for C A Parsons & Co from September 1965
to December 1979 as a machine operator. The firm was a large
manufacturer of turbines, transformers and other electrical
components.

The workshops would be dusty as fitters carrying out their work
would create a lot of dust, which would linger in the air. After
Ken had left the firm, it is believed that it underwent an
asbestos removal programme.

C A Parsons became Reyrolle Parsons in 1968, merged with Clarke
Chapman to form Engineering Industries in 1977, became part of
Rolls-Royce plc in 1989 and still survives today as a division of
Siemens.

In January 1980, Ken began work as an assistant technician for the
GPO, where he stayed until his retirement in June 2010, which by
then the company had become known as Royal Mail.

Ken's main duty was to help the mechanics in the garage to inspect
and repair Royal Mail vehicles. It is believed that Ken would have
come into contact with asbestos when helping to change brake
shoes, or inspecting the brakes, due to some brake shoes being
lined with asbestos.

Dad-of-two Ken, who has been married to his wife Ann for 48 years,
said: "I feel as though I am on borrowed time. My diagnosis came
as a complete shock to me and I was angry and frustrated to find
out that it was likely caused by my exposure to asbestos during my
working life. At no point was I given any training or warned about
the dangers of asbestos, or even provided with a mask.

"The disease has already had a significant impact on my day-to-day
life and I am concerned about what the future holds for me and my
family as my condition inevitably worsens.

"I urge any of my former colleagues to contact my legal team at
Irwin Mitchell if they feel they can provide any details that can
help this investigation and help my lawyers get justice for me and
ensure those responsible for my exposure to asbestos are held to
account."

Emma Tordoff, the industrial disease specialist at Irwin Mitchell
who is representing Ken, said: "We are working with Ken in his
fight for justice to find out how he was exposed to asbestos.

"We urge any of his former colleagues to come forward and help us
with the investigation by providing any information about the
working conditions at C A Parsons & Co and the GPO.

"Mesothelioma is incurable and its debilitating symptoms can only
be treated temporarily. Ken and his family are now suffering
terribly, simply because he wasn't adequately protected at work."

A spokesman for Siemens said: "We have been made aware of a
potential legacy claim involving a business that, through
acquisition, is connected with Siemens plc in Newcastle. We have
not been approached by any involved party and have not received
any details of a claim against Siemens. Should we receive a claim
we will deal with it in the appropriate manner."

A Royal Mail spokesperson said: "Royal Mail received a claim from
Mr Mulligan's solicitors just before Christmas and we have
instructed Weightmans to investigate and handle the claim. The
investigation into the claim is still ongoing."

Anyone who worked with Ken and can provide any information is
asked to contact Michael McGowan at Irwin Mitchell on 0191 279
0104 or email Michael.McGowan@IrwinMitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Waldingfield Man Dies of Asbestos Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Free Press reported that a Great Waldingfield man who died
from an asbestos-related disease was unable to pinpoint when he
may come into contact with the material, an inquest has been
heard.

Richard Fittock, 66, died in St Nicholas Hospice in Bury St
Edmunds.

An inquest at Ipswich was told that Mr Fittock had been diagnosed
as suffering from mesothelioma three months earlier. In a
statement made before his death, Mr Fittock said he was unable to
establish any obvious contact he had with asbestos, although he
had a number of jobs involving engineering. Assistant Suffolk
Coroner Dr Daniel Sharpstone recorded a conclusion that Mr Fittock
died from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fly-tippers Cost Taxpayers GBP5,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that islanders are being asked to help find the
culprits who dumped bags of hazardous asbestos in a field in
Jersey -- costing taxpayers GBP5000.

The Department of the Environment say it was "the biggest pile of
asbestos they've ever come across".

Specialist contractors were called in to "contain and safely
remove" the asbestos for health and safety reasons.

The Department of the Environment say it will cost cost taxpayers
at least GBP5000 to clear the industrial waste.

Nine bin liners full of the hazardous toxin were left near Maufant
overnight between the 6th and 7th December.

An investigation to find the culprits has been ongoing since
Christmas, but authorities say they have reached the point where
they "need the public's help".

David Monks, Head of Waste Regulation, branded the fly-tipping
behavior as "unacceptable"

Islanders are also being urged to come forwards with information
on any businesses who may have disposed their asbestos waste in a
suspicious manner.

Authorities say that all information will be treated in the
strictest confidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Veterans Hall to Replace Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------
In December, the Daily News reported that an asbestos abatement
project had been scheduled at a Veteran Memorial Hall in
California. According to the article, the flooring in the main
area has deteriorated over time and underneath it are materials
that are known to contain asbestos.

In the past, asbestos was used in some floor tiles, sheet vinyl,
backing materials, adhesives and glues. Its ability to strengthen
and increase the durability of these materials made it popular.
Flooring materials were not the only common building materials to
utilize asbestos. Through the 1970s, numerous other building
products and insulation materials used in residential, commercial
and institutional buildings also contained asbestos.

Unfortunately, over time, asbestos-containing materials can become
friable and create exposure risks. These materials can also be a
significant hazard during demolition, remodeling and renovation
activities if the proper safety precautions are not taken as
exposure to asbestos fibers can lead to lung cancer, mesothelioma
and asbestosis

"Asbestos is still found in many homes and buildings across
California," said Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager of LA
Testing's Huntington Beach facility. "Unless materials are
labeled, which they seldom are, the only way to know if they
contain asbestos is to have them tested. Air, dust and surface
sampling can also help to determine if people are being exposed to
asbestos fibers. In many circumstances, there are also regulations
in place that require testing before a project takes place that
could disturb asbestos-containing materials"

To protect workers, building occupants and help to keep companies
in regulatory compliance, LA Testing offers comprehensive asbestos
testing services, sampling supplies and test kits.

To learn more about asbestos testing or other environmental,
indoor air quality, occupational, health and safety issues, please
visit www.LATesting.com, email  info@LATesting.com  or call (800)
755-1794.

About LA Testing

LA Testing is California's leading laboratory for air quality
testing of asbestos, mold, lead, VOCs, formaldehyde, soot, char,
ash and smoke damage, particulates and other chemicals. In
addition, LA Testing offers a full range of air sampling and
investigative equipment to professionals and the general public.
LA Testing maintains an extensive list of accreditations
including: AIHA LAP LLC., AIHA ELLAP, AIHA EMLAP and AIHA IHLAP,
NVLAP, CDC ELITE, State of California, State of Hawaii Department
of Health and other states. LA Testing, along with the EMSL
Analytical, Inc. network, has multiple laboratories throughout
California including Huntington Beach, San Diego, San Leandro and
South Pasadena.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Kinder Site Sparks Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Watson, writing for Mordialloc Chelsea Leader, reported that
air quality at Chelsea Primary School has been tested after
asbestos was discovered on nearby land earmarked for a new
kindergarten.

Department of Education and Training spokesman Steve Tolley told
Leader the Victorian School Building Authority ran precautionary
tests at the school but no airborne asbestos fibres were detected
there.

The department has also indicated it would not contribute to the
clean up costs at the kinder site on Glenola Rd, Chelsea which is
leased by Kingston Council from them.

Kingston Council discovered isolated areas of the kinder land
contained asbestos and heavy metals in the surface fill material.

The discovery was made after soil taken from there was dumped at
Chelsea's Bicentennial Park and found to be contaminated with
asbestos days after children were playing in the mounds.

Kingston chief executive John Nevins told Leader the clean-up at
both sites would cost about $850,000 but said that figure has been
revised down to about $813,500.

He said council would seek a contribution from the government
however, the department said the State Government was contributing
$2 million to build the Chelsea kindergarten, which included
construction contingency funds and said there was no scope for
that contribution to be increased.

"(Removing the asbestos) involves wrapping the contaminated soil
in double layers of polythene and transporting it in specially-
licensed trucks to be disposed of at a tip licensed by the EPA
(Environment Protection Authority) to receive contaminants," Mr
Nevins said.

EPA southern metro manager Marleen Mathias said inspectors visited
the park and kindergarten site on November 14, after which the EPA
told council to clean up the park by December 16.

The EPA also advised council how to clean up the Glenola Rd site
and all contaminated material is now removed.

"EPA will not be taking any further action in relation to this
issue; however, EPA continues to provide council with advice about
putting in place procedures to manage the importation of new clean
fill to the site," Ms Mathias said.

"The City of Kingston is managing the build for the kindergarten
and agreed with the department to carry out all earthworks at the
site to remove contaminated soil over the summer holidays," Mr
Tolley said.

"As the regulatory authority responsible for the approval of early
childhood and care services in Victoria, the Department of
Education and Training will ensure the site is safe before
approving it for use as a kindergarten."



                            *********

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  * * *