CAR_Public/170217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, February 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 35



                            Headlines

360 DIGITAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Middle District of Florida
AEROTEK INC: "Gordon" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces "Garvey" Suit in Northern Dist. of Ill.
AUSTRALIA: Former Retta Dixon Residents to Receive Compensation
AUSTRALIA: BELAW Begins Indigenous Workers' Wage Class Action

BARKWORKS: Averts Class Action Over Puppy Mill Allegations
CALAMOS PARTNERS: Short Changed in Merger Deal, "Witmer" Says
CANADA: Judge Allows '60s Scoop Class Action to Proceed
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Robocalls
CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Enbrel Side Effects

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Settles Retiree Medical Class Action
COASTAL BUILDING: "Nolasco" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
CONAIR: March 9 Dryer Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
CPCM ACQUISITION: Faces "Solak" Lawsuit Over Going Private Deal
DEKALB COUNTY: Faces "Meyer" Suit in Western District of Texas

DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Gas Royalties Class Action
EPIC SYSTEMS: SCOTUS Pushes Waiver Case to October 2017 Term
FT FITNESS OPCO: "Amsler" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
GILLMANN SERVICES: "Harden" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay
GLACIER WATER: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Magee" Suit in E.D. Louisiana

HEIDELBERGCEMENT: CDC Loses Cement Cartel Class Action
HOMETOWN CARE: "Hite" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over Accreditation
LANDRY'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Workers in "Griffith" Suit
LOWRY LAND: Faces "Hutchason" Suit Alleging Misclassification

MARATHON OIL: Faces "Bollenbach" Suit in Western Dist. of Okla
MISSOURI, USA: Court Denies Jackson's Bid for Class Certification
MURPHY OIL: SCOTUS to Hear Waiver Case in October 2017 Term
NFL ENTERPRISES: Cheerleaders File Class Suit in Georgia
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Baksh" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

ORACLE CORP: Salespeople File Class Action Over Commissions
PETCO ANIMAL: Overtime Pay Sought in "Cote" Labor Dispute
REMINGTON: Presents Defective Rifle Settlement Before Court
REWALK ROBOTICS: "Deng" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
RICE ENERGY: Robinson Moves to Certify Class of Consultants

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: "Phillips" Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORT: "Goss" Seeks Damages from Share Drop
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Certification of Class Sought in "Dickon" Suit
RUI CREDIT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Eastern District of New York
SFPP LP: Landowners Seek to Certify Class in Right-of-Way Suit

SIENTRA INC: May 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ST CLAIR, MI: Residents File Class Action Over Sewer Backups
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hedlund" Suit Over IPO Disclosures
SUBWAY: Plaintiffs in Text Message Class Action Appeal Ruling
TILE SHOP: May 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

TRIDENT INDUSTRIAL: "Leija" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
TRUGREEN INC: 6th Circuit Reverses Ruling in Arbitration Case
UNILEVER CANADA: Legal Logik Firm Files "Pink Tax" Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Seeks to Certify Medallion Holders Class
UNITED STATES: ACRL Files Class Suit in Michigan

UNITED STATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Smallwood" Class Suit in D.C.
US WELL SERVICES: Court Certifies Workers Class in "Lackie" Suit
VECTOR MARKETING: "Knudsen" Suit Moved to District of Mass.
WELLS FARGO: Torres Moves for Certification of Consultants Class
YAHOO INC: Warns Users of Malicious Activity on Accounts

ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces 15-Year Sentence for Role in Scam

* Lack of Registration Process Hampers Collective Action in UK
* Labor Dep't. Seeks to Delay Fiduciary Rule Applicability Date
* Procedure Rule Changes Proposed in Class Action Litigation Act
* Securities Class Action Filing Activity Surpasses Prior Years


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Summary Judgment in "Macqueen"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. BorgWarner Partly Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Herty Wins Summary Judgment in Widow's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Allowed to File Bid to Substitute

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Motion in DeLisle v. Crane Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Seeks Review of Ruling in "Sweberg"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument Held in Crane's Appeal in "Poage"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeals $0.4MM Award in "Rabovsky"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeals $6.8MM Award in "Coulbourn"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $73.5MM for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $227MM Additional Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Real Warns of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Claims Asbestos Caused Death of Loved One
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refusal to Unseal Deposition a Travesty

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Asbestos Trial Expected by Month's End
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Central Valley Students Sue School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Asbestos in Housing Prompts Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Counsel Moves for Mistrial in Madison County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Faculty Offices in Miguel

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cosatu Threatens Suit vs. De Lille Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate Administrator Sues Manufacturers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Woman's Losing Battle for Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Co. Fights Community Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $411MM Asbestos Charge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed for Illegal Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transport Workers Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Axminster Flats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Rejects Removal Statute Interpretation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Closes Oxford University Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Asbestos Spy Must Reveal Client
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Force Eviction in Boise Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins at Elementary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk High Among Shipyard Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Continues

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Months of Asbestos Removal Start in Tonga
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds Back Bid to Save Asbestos Cases Dept.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ottawa Schools Rife with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Asbestos Exposure on RHH Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos "Double-Dipping" Bill Reintroduced

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Private School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies With Asbestos at Home Have Health Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning in Fire-Ravaged NSW Towns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Asbestos Shuts Eyemouth Recycling Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Kills Retired Chef

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rawlins Stops Demolition After Asbestos Find


                            *********


360 DIGITAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 360 Digital
Marketing LLC. The case is captioned as Kevin Lopez and Michael
Biondi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 360 Digital Marketing LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00209-
JA-TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge John Antoon II.

Digital 360 full service digital agency offers a full range of
services from digital strategy to website development & digital
marketing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 9827
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


AEROTEK INC: "Gordon" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mia Gordon, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aerotek, Inc., a Corporation; and Does
1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1621258, was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:17-cv-00225 to the proceeding.

Aerotek is a leading staffing agency that matches qualified
candidates with top companies worldwide.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces "Garvey" Suit in Northern Dist. of Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida. The case is titled as Terence
Garvey, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. American Bankers Insurance
Company of Florida, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00986 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman.

American Bankers develops, underwrites and markets specialty
insurance, extended service contracts and other risk management
solutions in collaborative relationships with leading financial
institutions, retailers, automobile dealers, utilities and other
entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J McMorrow
          McMorrow Law, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street
          44th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 265-0708
          E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com


AUSTRALIA: Former Retta Dixon Residents to Receive Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avani Dias, writing for ABC, reports that after enduring years of
horrific sexual and physical abuse, 71 former residents of a home
for Indigenous Stolen Generation children in Darwin will be
compensated in what their lawyer says is the largest class action
in the Northern Territory's history.

They are also the first group across the country to attain
compensation from the Federal Government following evidence heard
by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse, which has been holding hearings around Australia for
almost four years.

The former residents of the Retta Dixon Home took civil action in
2014 against a number of defendants, including convicted
paedophile and the home's former house parent Donald Bruce
Henderson, the Commonwealth, and Australian Indigenous Ministries
Christian organisation which ran the home.

The plaintiffs allege physical and sexual assaults by staff at the
home from 1946 to 1980, and sought compensation for a failure of
duty of care by the defendants, saying they suffered damage and
loss as a result.

The group's lawyer Bill Piper said the class action was settled
after a week-long mediation in Darwin.

"We can confirm there has been a resolution of the Retta Dixon
class action," he said.

Hopes settlement will lead to closure

Mr. Piper said Mr. Henderson, lawyers for the Commonwealth
Government, which administered the NT at the relevant time, and
lawyers for Australian Indigenous Ministries (AIM), participated
in the mediation.

"Of the 71 plaintiffs, around half alleged sexual abuse and
virtually all alleged physical abuse while they were at, or under
the control of, the missionaries of house parents running the
home," Mr Piper said.

"We think it's the largest class action that there's been in the
NT that's now settled and the terms of settlement are
confidential."

The Federal Government was responsible for taking many of the
mixed-race children from their families and putting them in the
home as wards of the state.

"The Commonwealth acknowledges the trauma that has resulted from
the abuse experienced by some of the children who resided in the
Retta Dixon Home," a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
spokesperson said.

Survivors told of horrific abuse endured at the home

The institution housed scores of Aboriginal children from 1946 to
1980.

The royal commission in 2014 laid bare allegations of horrific
sexual, physical and mental abuse at the home.

A child at Retta Dixon who suffered seizures was allegedly tied up
like a dog to a bed, and fed on the ground with an enamel plate.

One girl allegedly had faeces rubbed in her face, was tied to a
clothesline and deliberately burned with hot water.

Residents testified to seeing a male house parent force-feed a
baby until she choked

The inquiry heard some children were raped so badly they were
taken to hospital for treatment, but were watched by their abuser
to make sure they did not alert authorities.

One man told of having to wear nappies to school as a boy to stop
the bleeding after being sexually assaulted, while other children
were allegedly flogged with a belt until they bled.

One woman said she had persistent hearing problems from beatings
to her head.

During the class action, the group told the court that staff at
the home failed to report abuse or to listen to the children when
they spoke up.

Many complaints related to house parent Henderson, now aged 80. In
1984, he was found guilty of sexually abusing two boys at a public
pool, but was never successfully prosecuted for criminal offences
allegedly committed at the home.

However, the royal commission heard there was evidence to support
charges.

Mr. Piper said the compensation payment is not expected for
several months and he will be speaking to all 71 plaintiffs
individually.


AUSTRALIA: BELAW Begins Indigenous Workers' Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Barry, writing for The North West Star, reports that law
firm BELAW has begun a class action in Queensland on behalf of
hundreds of Indigenous Australians impacted by wage control
legislation prior to 1973.

BELAW solicitors and support will visit Mount Isa, Cloncurry and
Camooweal to talk to potential claimants next week.  "We would
like to talk to Indigenous Australians who worked in Queensland
prior to 1973 and had their wages controlled, or whose deceased
parents worked before 1973, if people know the work details of
their parents," Jerry Tucker, BELAW solicitor said.

BELAW will be available to meet with potential claimants in Mount
Isa February 20, 21 and 22 9am to 4.30pm at the Moondarra Room,
Ibis Styles.

They will be in Cloncurry 9am-4pm February 23 at the Cloncurry
Shire Council meeting room and in Camooweal 9am-3pm February 24 at
the hall.

Information they need: work history prior to 1973, date of birth,
work places (eg station names), name of employer, what kind of
work, how much money was paid and ID (eg birth certificate or
driver licence).


BARKWORKS: Averts Class Action Over Puppy Mill Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Coker, writing for OCWeekly, reports that animal activists
have succeeded in drawing protests, lawsuits and media coverage to
the Barkworks pet store chain in Orange County, where there are
allegations of dogs from puppy mills being sold.

But the chain's Los Angeles-based attorney says Barkworks just
scored a legal win.

Daniel Silverman, Celeste Brecht, Matthew Gurvitz and Melissa
McLaughlin successfully defeated a Motion for Class Certification
despite going against six plaintiff lawyers and the Animal Legal
Defense Fund.

The plaintiffs were seeking to certify a class of all California
customers of Chien et Chat, Inc. (Barkworks Pet Stores) from 2009
to the present based on claims that store policies, business
practices and intentional misrepresentations misled customers to
purchase puppies that were sick at the time of sale.

However, Judge Thierry Colaw in the Complex Division of the Orange
County Superior Court denied the motion.  Whether a particular
puppy was sick at the time of sale, and whether that illness was
the result of Barkworks' conduct, presented too many
individualized questions to make class certification appropriate,
the judge ruled.

Judge Colaw found the plaintiffs did not present any method for
identifying which Barkworks' customers suffered harm and concluded
that class-action status would not make trying the case easier for
the court or the jury.


CALAMOS PARTNERS: Short Changed in Merger Deal, "Witmer" Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Witmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. John P. Calamos, Sr., Thomas F. Eggers,
John Koudounis, Keith (Kim) M. Schappert, William N. Shiebler,
Calamos Partners LLC, and CPCM Acquisition, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 2017-0073 (Del. Ch., January 31, 2017), seeks damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief for
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
Calamos Asset Management, Inc. merger with Calamos Partners LLC
and CPCM Acquisition, Inc., with Calamos Asset Management as the
surviving corporation.

Plaintiff alleges that the price of $8.25 in cash for each share
of Calamos Asset Management Class A common stock is insufficient
and is substantially unfair in terms of process and price, failing
to protect its minority stockholders and favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


CANADA: Judge Allows '60s Scoop Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Canada
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent thousands of on-reserve
children who were placed with non-native families from losing
their indigenous heritage during the '60s Scoop, an Ontario judge
ruled in a landmark case on Feb. 14.

The decision in the long-running and bitterly fought class action
paves the way for an assessment of damages the government will now
have to pay and was hailed as a major step toward reconciliation
and healing.

The lawsuit launched eight years ago sought $1.3 billion on behalf
of about 16,000 indigenous children in Ontario who claimed they
were harmed by being placed in non-aboriginal homes from 1965 to
1984 under terms of a federal-provincial agreement.

In siding with the plaintiffs, Ontario Superior Court Justice
Edward Belobaba found Canada had breached its "duty of care" to
the children.  The judge also found that Ottawa breached part of
the agreement that required consultation with Indian bands about
the child-welfare program.

Justice Belobaba was scathing about the government's contention
that consultation with the bands would have made little difference
to the children.

"This is an odd and, frankly, insulting submission," Justice
Belobaba wrote.  "Canada appears to be saying that even if the
extension of child welfare services to their reserves had been
fully explained to the Indian bands and, if each band had been
genuinely consulted about their concerns in this regard, that no
meaningful advice or ideas would have been forthcoming."

Justice Belobaba rejected the government's arguments that the
1960s were different times, and that it acted with good intentions
in line with prevailing standards.  As a result, the government
insisted, it could not have known the harm that might have been
done to the children.

"Canada's submission misses the point," Justice Belobaba said.
"The issue is not what was known in the 1960s about the harm of
trans-racial adoption or the risk of abuse in the foster home."

Instead, the justice said, there could be "no doubt" that what was
well known even then was the importance to First Nations peoples
of protecting and preserving their distinctive cultures and
traditions, including their concept of extended family.

The lead plaintiff in the Ontario action, Marcia Brown Martel, 53,
a member of the Temagami First Nation near Kirkland Lake, Ont.,
was adopted by a non-aboriginal couple in 1972 at age nine. She
later discovered the Canadian government had declared her original
identity dead.

"I feel like a great weight has been lifted from my heart," Brown
Martel said in a statement.  "Our voices were finally heard and
listened to.  Our pain was acknowledged."

In Ottawa, Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said the
government would "absolutely not" appeal the ruling, but she also
suggested more than money was at stake.

"It is really important that, as we begin these conversations
about what is the best way forward for these survivors, we
understand that what they are talking about are language and
culture and the kinds of things that were taken from them, and
they're things that a court can't really award," Bennett said.

"So, it's really important that we get to the table as quickly as
possible."

Justice Belobaba said that while the 1965 agreement, strictly
speaking, applied to the Indian bands and not the children, he
hoped the government would not now try to make such a "formalistic
argument" given the First Nations context.

The Liberal government indicated it was going to try to block
Justice Belobaba from releasing his ruling after Bennett announced
an intention to negotiate with '60s Scoop survivors across the
country.  The government relented amid outrage by the plaintiffs
and critics, who called the attempt to stop the ruling
unprecedented political interference.

Similar legal actions in several provinces other than Ontario are
pending but none has been certified.  Those cases focus on the
apprehension of the children itself rather on the protection of
their aboriginal identities.

Perry Bellegarde, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations,
welcomed the ruling, saying children of the '60s Scoop deserve
"justice, healing and reconciliation."


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that Capital One NA was
hit with a proposed class action on Feb. 14 in Florida federal
court alleging the bank violates the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by routinely using an automatic telephone dialing system to
call noncustomers' cellphones without permission.

Darrell Pickett alleges that months after he got a new cellphone
number, Capital One started bombarding him with calls placed using
an autodialer, despite him explaining that the bank was calling
the wrong number and asking for the calls to cease.

Thus, the complaint alleges, the bank violates the TCPA "by using
an automatic telephone dialing system to place nonemergency calls
to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior
express consent -- in that it calls wrong or reassigned cellular
telephone numbers that do not belong to its customers."

The Orlando resident contends that he received a slew of calls
from a number assigned to Capital One from at least April to July,
at least once leaving a voicemail asking for someone who wasn't
Mr. Pickett and whom he didn't know.

On at least one occasion, Mr. Pickett answered and told Capital
One's representative that the bank was calling the wrong number
and asked that they stop, the complaint says.

Mr. Pickett is not, nor ever was, a Capital One customer,
according to the complaint.  He didn't give the bank his phone
number, nor provide express consent to place calls to his
cellphone using an automatic telephone dialing system, he says.

The complaint alleges that based on the frequency, number, nature
and character of the calls, Capital One placed them using
equipment that has the capacity to store or produce telephone
numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator
and to dial those numbers.

As a result of these autodialed calls, Pickett says he suffered
actual harm in the form of invasion of privacy, an intrusion into
his life and a private nuisance.  The calls also depleted
cellphone minutes that he had to pay for and tied up his phone
line, the complaint says.

He seeks to represent a proposed class of cellphone owners Capital
One called in connection with its automobile financing business
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice during the last four years without prior express
consent, meaning that the called party wasn't the intended
recipient of the call.

Mr. Pickett seeks an injunction, class and treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on Feb. 14.

Mr. Pickett is represented by Michael L. Greenwald, James L.
Davidson, Jesse S. Johnson and Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC.

Counsel information for Capital One wasn't immediately available.

The case is Darrell Pickett v. Capital One NA, case number 6:17-
cv-00260, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.


CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Enbrel Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Orange
County, California, consumer is suing a drug business, alleging
breach of warranty, unfair competition and violation of state law.

B. Amburgey of Newport Beach, California, filed a class action
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Feb. 2 in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against Caremarkpcs Health LLC and Does 1-10,
alleging they failed to ensure that the specialty drugs are
maintained within the required temperature range.

According to the complaint, Amburgey suffered side effects from
taking the drug Enbrel that was ineffective due to the way it was
stored.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to make sure
that Enbrel was properly stored with the proper temperature
required by FDA guidelines.

Amburgey seeks trial by jury, enjoin the defendant, restitution,
all legal fees and all other relief the court deems just.  She is
represented by attorneys Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
-- and Hannah P. Belknap -- hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com -- of
Zimmerman Reed LLP in Manhattan Beach, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:17-cv-00183-CJC-KES


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Settles Retiree Medical Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
John Meagher, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that on
February 9, 2017, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Century Aluminum Company, announced
that it had entered into a Settlement Agreement (subject to court
and other approvals) regarding the previously disclosed retiree
medical class action lawsuit pending before the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

"We are pleased to have reached this milestone," commented
Century's President and Chief Executive Officer, Michael Bless.
"By settling this litigation, we are eliminating a risk for our
shareholders while providing a benefit for a group of
extraordinary people, many of whom dedicated their professional
lives to the safe and efficient operation of the plant. It has
been an honor and a privilege to get to know many of them
personally.  We are also appreciative of the union's leadership
and commitment to reach a rational solution.

"We are fortunate to have received tremendous support from West
Virginia's elected leaders in this process, including the direct
participation of Senators Manchin and Capito and former Governor
Tomblin," Mr. Bless concluded.  "I can say without doubt that,
without Senator Manchin's personal commitment and leadership over
many years, this agreement would not have been reached. The
citizens of West Virginia are fortunate to have such dedicated
public servants."

As previously disclosed, under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, Century Aluminum of West Virginia has agreed to make
payments into a trust for the benefit of certain former employees
of the now closed Ravenswood, W.V. aluminum smelter in the
aggregate amount of $23 million over the course of ten years (the
"Settlement Amount").

The Settlement Amount is payable in installments with $5 million
payable upon final approval by the court of the Settlement
Agreement and $2 million payable annually thereafter for nine
years.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to final court approval
following a notice period during which persons within the class
have the opportunity to object to the settlement or thereafter
appeal such approval.  Final court approval is not expected before
the third quarter of 2017.

Century Aluminum Company owns primary aluminum capacity in the
United States and Iceland. Century's corporate offices are located
in Chicago, IL.

Visit www.centuryaluminum.com for more information.


COASTAL BUILDING: "Nolasco" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Leomindry Nolasco, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Coastal Building
Maintenance, Inc., a Florida profit corporation;
Matthew R. Sullivan, individually; and Agatha Velez, individually,
Case No. 17-00369 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-20463-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Coastal Building Maintenance, Inc., is family owned and operated
since 1953. CBM Florida is a full-service janitorial and cleaning
company in Miami.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luke Clinton Savage, Esq.
          ALLEN NORTON & BLUE
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442 1578
          E-mail: lsavage@anblaw.com

               - and -

          Suhaill Machado Morales, Esq.
          ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442 1578
          E-mail: smorales@anblaw.com


CONAIR: March 9 Dryer Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Bednarz, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute,
reports that if you own a Conair Infiniti Pro model 259 or 279
hair dryer that you bought before August 31, 2016 in New York or
California, then you are probably part of a class action
settlement that your putative attorneys did little to tell you
about.

One of the manufacturers of the above Conair models, Neumax,
supposedly produced especially dangerous hair dryers.  Plaintiffs
alleged that under normal use, these dryers could catch fire, or
shoot sparks from the handle.

This seems like something you would want to know about, right?
Well, unless you're obsessively reading the legal notices in
People magazine or clicking wildly on internet banner ads (yes,
banner ads, like it's 1996), the settlement agreement provides
little hope you would ever find out about the settlement.
Plaintiffs' counsel could have subpoenaed customer information
from retailers like CVS and Amazon to send class members direct
notice, but they chose not to do so.  Prior to the settlement,
Conair called the notice plan "woefully insufficient."

Even for class members who do manage to find out about the
settlement, it's needlessly difficult to get benefits.  Owners of
the Neumax-manufactured hair dryers are eligible to receive a
replacement dryer, and owners of 259/279 hair dryers made by other
manufacturers can claim $5.00.  But there are hoops to jump
through: all claiming class members must print out a claim form,
write down two serial numbers off the dryer, and attach either a
photograph of the dryer or proof of purchase, then send all of
this via postal mail.  No email is accepted, nor is any online
filing available (like it's 1896).  Class members with a Neumax-
manufactured dryer (which can be identified by an 'N' engraved on
the plug) must also arrange to have their dryer shipped to Conair.
The replacement will arrive sometime after the settlement is
approved, likely months in the future.

Why would plaintiffs' attorneys do so little to inform class
members and then make it so hard to claim any benefit? Simple:
plaintiffs' counsel would prefer that money to settle the lawsuit
go to themselves rather than the class.

Bad class action settlements frequently pay class members a
pittance while providing disproportionate fees to attorneys.
Because courts are reluctant to approve settlements that obviously
pay attorneys more than class members, clever attorneys devise
gimmicks to obscure this fact.  One of the most frequently-abused
gimmicks is a "claims-made settlement."  Instead of agreeing to
pay a lump sum to the class (called a common fund), the defendant
instead agrees to pay each class member a flat payment per claim.
Settling parties know that only a fraction of class members will
file claims even under ideal circumstances, and a difficult claims
process will further depress recovery.  With few benefits going to
the class, the parties can agree to larger fees for counsel.

The Conair settlement provides class members with either five
whopping dollars or a replacement hair dryer, but Conair agreed to
pay counsel $1,196,000 cash.  Counsel rationalizes their proposed
fee by saying that " $4.58 to $5.37 million" is "made available"
to about a half million class members in New York and California,
but few will be paid due to the lack of direct notice and
pointless hoop jumping.  The figures are "alternative facts":
fictional values to make the attorneys' fees seem proportional.
CEI's Center for Class Action Fairness opposes this practice and
has recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reform claims-
made settlements so that attorneys' fees are based on benefits
actually given to class members.

As for the Conair settlement, one hopes that a class member
investigates the unfairness of the settlement and retains
qualified counsel to object.  The claims deadline and the
objection deadline is March 9.


CPCM ACQUISITION: Faces "Solak" Lawsuit Over Going Private Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOLAK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN P. CALAMOS, SR., THOMAS F. EGGERS,
JOHN KOUDOUNIS, KEITH (KIM) M. SCHAPPERT, WILLIAM N. SHIEBLER,
CALAMOS PARTNERS LLC, and CPCM ACQUISITION, INC. Defendants, Case
No. 2017-0083 (Del. Ch., February 3, 2017), seeks damages for
Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection
with a Proposed Transaction wherein the Company will be taken
private through a tender offer and second step merger that values
each share of CAM Class A common stock for $8.25 in cash.
Allegedly, the Special Committee that approved the transaction
lacked independence and utterly failed to protect CAM's minority
stockholders.

The Company primarily provides investment advisory services to
individuals and institutional investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600


DEKALB COUNTY: Faces "Meyer" Suit in Western District of Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeKalb County
Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Lorna Meyer, pleading on
her own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. DeKalb County Solutions, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00081-DAE (W.D. Tex., Feb. 6, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge David A. Ezra.

DeKalb County Solutions is a debt collection agency located in
Sycamore, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          Facsimile: (862) 204 5901
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Ruling in Gas Royalties Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Max B. Baker, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that Devon Energy
contends that a Dallas federal judge ignored state law when he
allowed a class-action lawsuit to go forward accusing it of using
sham transactions to underpay thousands of property owners in
North Texas tens of millions of dollars in royalties.

In January, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade granted class-action
certification to a lawsuit brought by four individuals with leases
in Denton County who had their gas processed at a Bridgeport
plant.  By certifying the class, Judge Kinkeade said they
represent the interests of thousands of landowners with common
legal issues.

The Devon case echoes accusations brought against Chesapeake
Energy that it sold natural gas from its Barnett Shale wells to an
affiliate and pocketed the profits when it was sold on the open
market.

In a filing with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans,
Devon says Judge Kinkeade's ruling would force the Oklahoma City
company to face a fundamentally unfair situation of defending
thousands of claims in one trial or be forced to purse a
settlement worth tens of millions of dollars.

Devon accuses Judge Kinkeade of "abuse of discretion" in granting
certification without examining the 4,143 leases involved.

"In certifying a class, the district court failed to conduct the
mandatory rigorous analysis" and "made clearly erroneous findings
of fact, and failed to properly apply Texas law," according to
court documents filed in late January.  The court's ruling exposes
Devon "to potentially ruinous liability."

Attorneys representing the landowners earlier this month fired
back that Judge Kinkeade's ruling is anchored in Texas Supreme
Court rulings and presents no "novel or unsettled issues," court
records show.  They also said the case is not "ruinous" when Devon
has $26.8 billion in assets and $4.2 billion in quarterly
earnings.

David Drez, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, declined to
comment.  John Porretto, a spokesman for Devon, said the company
doesn't comment on pending litigation.

In their lawsuit, the landowners allege Devon Energy's production
arm sold the natural gas at a low well head price to an affiliate,
Devon Gas Services, which then processed the gas through its
Bridgeport plant and deducted an "unreasonable and lucrative 17.5
percent processing fee" from the royalty checks.

The lawsuit refers to these transactions as a sham, made worse by
the fact that once the gas left the plant, Devon and its
affiliates sold the residue gas to third parties for a profit but
didn't pass those proceeds on.  The lawsuit covers gas sales from
2008 to 2014, when Devon owned the Bridgeport plant.

The Texas Oil and Gas Association, a trade group representing more
than 5,000 energy industry members, filed documents supporting
Devon's position, saying that Judge Kinkeade's decision runs
counter to jurisprudence and "unquestionably creates settlement
pressure" when "the merits of individual claims are in doubt."
Allowing the Devon case to go to trial will "encourage comparable
class actions," court records state.


EPIC SYSTEMS: SCOTUS Pushes Waiver Case to October 2017 Term
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron R. Wegrzyn, Esq. -- awegrzyn@foley.co -- of Foley & Lardner
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the
United States Supreme Court informed litigants in Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis that it is pushing the case to its October 2017
term.  The lawsuit, which rose up through the Western District of
Wisconsin and the Seventh Circuit, presents the High Court with a
chance to resolve a robust circuit split on the question whether
mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts may contain
class action waivers without running afoul of the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA).  Last spring, the Seventh Circuit ruled that
such clauses were unenforceable, deviating from rulings by the
Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, and prompting the Supreme
Court to grant certiorari on January 13, 2017.

The resolution of the issue turns on whether NLRA Section 7's (29
U.S.C. Sec. 157) protection of employees' right to engage in
"concerted activities" qualifies as a "contrary congressional
command" (under CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665,
669 (2012)) sufficient to override the Federal Arbitration Act's
(FAA) presumption that arbitration agreements are enforceable as
written.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the
position for years that class action waivers in employment
agreements are unenforceable under the NLRA. See D.R. Horton,
Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. 2277, 2289 (2012).  In Lewis, Judge Barbara
Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin followed the NLRB's
interpretation, based on Supreme Court precedent directing courts
to give "considerable deference" to the agency's interpretations
of the NLRA. Lewis, No. 15-cv-82-bbc, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
121137, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2015) (quoting ABF Freight
System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 324 (1994)).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit ruled that such class action
waivers were "illegal" under the NLRA, making them unenforceable
because the FAA contains a "savings clause" that allows courts to
refuse to recognize arbitration agreements on grounds sufficient
"for the revocation of any contract." Lewis, 823 F.3d 1147, 1159
(7th Cir. 2016) (quoting 9 U.S.C. Sec 2). The Seventh Circuit
acknowledged that its decision departed from precedents in its
sister circuits but dismissed their reasoning. Following Lewis, a
divided Ninth Circuit panel joined the Seventh Circuit, deepening
the circuit split and teeing the issue up for Supreme Court
review.

Because the case has now been deferred until next term, President
Trump's recent nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch leads inquisitive
minds to wonder about his jurisprudence on the FAA.  With the
Supreme Court's present four-to-four ideological split, Judge
Gorsuch's vote may well decide the case. The 10th Circuit has not
weighed in on the enforceability of class action waivers in
employment agreements, but Judge Gorsuch's opinions on the FAA
demonstrate a commitment to enforcing its preference for
arbitration.

Just a few weeks ago, in Ragab v. Howard, 841 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.
2016), Judge Gorsuch penned a dissent from a panel decision that
affirmed denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  The parties in
Ragab agreed to six business contracts with one another, each
containing a separate (and contradictory) mandatory arbitration
provision, which led the panel to rule that the parties failed to
reach agreement on the essential terms regarding arbitration.  In
his dissent, Judge Gorsuch opined that the parties' verbal
cacophony regarding the procedural details of arbitration did not
override their clear intention to arbitrate. His dissent
identified two "workarounds" to save the arbitration agreements
and alluded to the preemptive force of the FAA over state law. Id.
at 1139, 1141.  And, in Sanchez v. Nitro-Lift Techs., L.L.C., 762
F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2014), Judge Gorsuch joined an opinion
requiring three former employees to arbitrate their wage claims
against their employer, despite ambiguity in the parties'
arbitration agreement, based on the "liberal federal policy
favoring arbitration." Id. at 1145, 1147-48.

Furthermore, Judge Gorsuch has expressed deep skepticism regarding
deference to administrative agencies.  Back in August, he authored
not one but two opinions in a case called Gutierrez-Brizuela v.
Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016).  In his opinion for the
court, Judge Gorsuch ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals
could not apply a new administrative rule retroactively. Id. at
1148.  Then, in a separate concurring opinion, he called on the
Supreme Court to reconsider the doctrine of Chevron deference to
administrative agencies, calling the precedent a "behemoth" of
administrative law that was "more than a little difficult to
square with the Constitution of the framers' design." Id. at 1149.
This suggests that the NLRB's anti-class waiver position may not
carry much deferential heft with Judge Gorsuch.

So, while it appears that employers across the country will need
to hold tight for a few months longer to see whether the class
action waivers in their employment agreements hold water, the wait
could be worthwhile for those looking to avoid class adjudication.


FT FITNESS OPCO: "Amsler" Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Amsler, Roberto Avila, Jose Benitez,
Dustin Bookhout, Rolando Castro, Chace Corbett, Greg Gamby, Dustin
Gutkowski, Damon Hodge, Robby Karl, Lindsey Allentia Lloyd, Jacob
Martin, Chris Mays, Herman McCord, Colin Padilla, Philip Pollard,
Brenton Robinson, Walter A. Rush, Iii, Tim Spicer, Anthony Tate,
Jeffrey Votaw and Terry Watson, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FT Fitness Opco, LLC, TXFF1
LLC, TXFF2 LLC, TXFF3 LLC, TXFF4 LLC, TXFF5 LLC, TEXAS Family
Fitness 6 LLC, TXFF7 LLC, Texas Family Fitness 8 LLC, TXFF9 LLC,
TEXAS FAMILY FITNESS 10 LLC, Texas Family Fitness 11 LLC, Texas
Family Fitness of Carrollton LLC, Texas Family Fitness of Mesquite
LLC, TXFFPE LLC, Texas Family Fitness of White Rock LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01121, (W.D. Tex., October 4, 2016),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on January 30, 2017, under Case No. 3:17-cv-
00282.

Plaintiffs formerly were General Managers and Assistant General
Managers, Sales Counsellors and Personal Trainers who have worked
unpaid overtime hours for Defendants, a chain of fitness gyms
operating under the Texas Family Fitness name.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
      1343 West Causeway Approach
      Mandeville, LA 70471
      Tel. (985) 778-2215
      Fax: (985) 778-2233
      E-mail: rdalton746@aol.com


GILLMANN SERVICES: "Harden" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Harden, James Ridley, David Ridley, and Maurice Lamb, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Gillmann Services, Inc., Varney Inc., Mechanical &
Electrical, Contractors, LLC f/k/a M&E Contractors, LLC, M&E
Contractors, Inc. and IES Commercial, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00091, (E.D. Va., January 31, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
and/or overtime wages with pre-judgment interest, plus an equal
amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expenses, and all recoverable costs of this suit, and post-
judgment interest as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gillmann is a temporary staffing agency in Virginia with its
headquarters at 11848 Rock Landing Drive, Suite 102, Newport News,
Virginia 23606. Varney, IES and M&E, electrical and plumbing
contractors, are clients of Gillmann who managed or operated
construction projects where Plaintiffs provided skilled labor.

Defendants, collectively, are alleged of avoiding paying full tax
obligation to state and federal taxing authorities and denying
employees the full overtime premium owed, mostly from off-the-
clock work and travel time to and from work.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
      Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM
      530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Fax: (804) 767-6777
      Email: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
             ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


GLACIER WATER: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Magee" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sarah S. Vance grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit captioned SCOTT MAGEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GLACIER WATER SERVICES, INC. AND
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-04364-SSV-KWR (E.D.
La.).

The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's second amended complaint and
denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On May 6, 2016, Mr. Magee, who is legally blind, filed the class
action lawsuit against Winn-Dixie, asserting that Winn-Dixie's
refill stations unlawfully discriminate against the blind in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Magee brought his ADA claim on behalf of himself and a
proposed class consisting of all legally blind individuals, who
have been or are being "denied access to Glacier Water Refill
Stations" located in the United States and owned and operated by
GWS, as well as a subclass of legally blind individuals, who have
been denied access to the stations at locations owned and operated
by Winn-Dixie.

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


HEIDELBERGCEMENT: CDC Loses Cement Cartel Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Global Legal Post reports that a class action case has failed
in its second attempt to bring an action for damages against
HeidelbergCement as court rules it a 'legacy case'.

Belgian company Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) had bought claims from
parties who allegedly suffered losses from the cement cartel and
were seeking compensation of hundreds of millions.

First attempts to obtain damages had been unsuccessful on account
of antitrust violations from the cement manufacturers before the
DÅsseldorf Regional and Higher Regional Courts.

The Mannheim Regional Court has now also dismissed CDC's action.

Legacy case

In its judgment, the Mannheim Regional Court endorsed the view
that the rule of suspension of section 33(5) Act Against
Restraints of Competition cannot -- given the clear and
unambiguous wording of the provision and the underlying system --
be applied to what are known as 'legacy cases'.  This meant that
the claims had become statute-barred, regardless of various
further objections.

Implications for private anti-trust litigation in EU
The Mannheim Regional Court's judgment has significant
implications for private antitrust litigation in Germany and other
EU Member States.

In November 2016, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court already had
to rule on an action brought by an individual cement buyer and
determined that Act Against Restraints of Competition does not
apply to "legacy cases".

An appeal on points of law has in the meantime been filed against
this judgment with the Federal Court of Justice.

Advisors

HeidelbergCement is being advised by a Gleiss Lutz team comprising
Dr Ulrich Denzel, Dr Andrea Leufgen, Dr Carsten Kloppner and Dr.
Florian Wagner.


HOMETOWN CARE: "Hite" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Hite, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hometown Care, LLC d/b/a Community
Caregivers of Cuyahoga Falls, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00199,
(N.D. Ohio., January 31, 2017), seeks compensatory damages in the
amount of their unpaid wages and commissions, as well as
liquidated damages in an equal amount, costs and attorney's fees
incurred in prosecuting this action and such other further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Revised Code 4113.15.

Hometown Care, LLC operates Community Caregivers of Cuyahoga Falls
where Defendant employed Hite as a home healthcare worker. Hite
seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
forty in certain workweeks.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, NW, Suite 201
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


INTERCOAST COLLEGES: Faces Class Action Over Accreditation
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that lack of
clearer allegations about accreditation could be a weak spot in
the $5 million putative class action lawsuit filed in Maine by
four former nursing students, a New York-based business law and
litigation attorney said during a recent interview.

"I was disappointed that the complaint did not more clearly spell
out the alleged misrepresentation regarding accreditation, which
seems to be the key fact," John J. Tollefsen of Tollefsen Law said
during a Legal Newsline email interview.

Mr. Tollefsen, whose "Negligent Misrepresentation in Washington
State Law" and "Four Theories of Recovery for Misrepresentation"
were first published in 2009 and 2012 respectively, said the
relevant laws are not uniform in all states.

"Negligent misrepresentation is a creation of common law applied
differently in the states and is harder to prove than the
statutory allegations (consumer protection violations) alleged in
the complaint," he said.  "I expect the case will turn on
statutory violations."

The putative class action complaint was filed Dec. 30 in U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine against Intercoast
Colleges, doing business as Intercoast Career Institute.  The four
plaintiffs and former Intercoast nursing students -- Stephanie
Kourembanas, Caridad Jean Baptiste, Cathy Mande and Catharine
Valley -- allege Intercoast misrepresented that it offered
accredited programs.

The four students' accusations against InterCoast are blistering.

"The InterCoast LPN Program was a sham," the lawsuit says.  "It
existed to make money without regard for the quality of education
its students received in exchange.  InterCoast provided little, if
any, educational value to its students and failed to enhance their
occupational qualifications or career prospects.

"Among other failings, InterCoast did not provide qualified
faculty members to teach required courses, did not provide
adequate clinical experiences for its students, and did not
adequately prepare its students for taking the National Council
Licensing Examination for Practical Nurses (NCLEX-PN), which they
had to pass to become LPNs and obtain work in their chosen field."

InterCoast charged each enrolled student about approximately
$36,000 to participate in its LPN Program, and most students paid
for that with federally backed student loans, the lawsuit said.

"InterCoast played an extensive role in the financial aid process
for plaintiffs and potential class members, which included
gathering and submitting the students' necessary paperwork to the
United States Department of Education," the lawsuit said.

"InterCoast worked to maximize the aid each student received from
the federal government so as to maximize the number of students
able to pay its high tuition.  InterCoast treated the United
States Department of Education as its cash source, with the
students serving unwittingly as the means by which InterCoast
enriched itself at the expense of both the students and the public
fisc."

InterCoast did not respond to a Legal Newsline request for
comment.

Mr. Tollefsen declined to speculate about what strategy
InterCoast's attorneys might follow in the case.

"I do not know enough about the facts to guess the defense," he
said.  "But often defendants point the finger at the plaintiffs:
e.g. they flunked the test due to their own inability and not
because of the quality of instruction."


LANDRY'S INC: Court Certifies Class of Workers in "Griffith" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary S. Scriven grants Jonathan Blocher's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled JEFFREY GRIFFITH,
JONATHAN BLOCHER, ANNETTE RODRIGUEZ, and JOSEPH LEVI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LANDRY'S, INC. and
CHLN, INC., Case No. 8:14-cv-03213-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.).  The
action is certified as a class action, the class being comprised
of:

     All individuals who worked at Chart House and/or Landry's
     Seafood House restaurants in Florida at any time during the
     Relevant Class Liability Period [beginning December 14,
     2009] for whom Defendants claimed a tip credit to meet
     Defendants' minimum wage obligations under Article X,
     Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and who participated
     in Defendants' Employee Discount Program.

Plaintiff Blocher, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, challenges the legality of the Landry's Employee
Discount Program -- a program that the Defendants administer in a
uniform way across all of their restaurants.  Specifically, Mr.
Blocher contends that the Defendants' deduction of money from his
and class members' tipped sub-minimum hourly wages or from their
tips for participation in the EDP violates the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.

Plaintiff Jonathan Blocher is appointed as the class
representative and Sam J. Smith, Esq., Loren Donnell, Esq., and
Tamra Givens, Esq., of Burr & Smith, LLP, and Hillary Schwab,
Esq., of Fair Work, P.C. are appointed as class counsel.

The Court directs the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs
within 21 days from the date of this Order the names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses (if known), unique
employee identification numbers, and social security numbers for
all class members.

Judge Scriven approves the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and
authorizes the Plaintiffs to provide notice of the case to the
class members via mail, e-mail, and Web site.  The Plaintiffs will
notify the Court in writing within seven days of giving class
notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=imNt2mrG


LOWRY LAND: Faces "Hutchason" Suit Alleging Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HUTCHASON, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWRY LAND CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00113-D (W.D. Okla., February 3, 2017), alleges
that Lowry Land improperly misclassified Plaintiff and Collective
Members as independent contractors. As a result of the
misclassification, Lowry Land, allegedly, did not pay Plaintiff
and Collective Members in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state wage laws and otherwise forced Plaintiff and
Collective Members to bear the costs of Lowry Land's business.

Lowry Land Co., Inc. provides third party services, such as
reviewing property titles, digital imaging of courthouse
documents, negotiating for the acquisition or divestiture of
mineral rights, curing title defects, managing rights and/or
obligations derived from ownership of interests in minerals, among
other services, for oil and gas companies throughout the
United States.

Plaintiff worked for Lowry Land reviewing, capturing and uploading
courthouse documents for companies in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven T. Horton, Esq.
     HORTON LAW FIRM
     114 N.W. 6th Street, Suite 201
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Phone: 405/606-8080
     Fax: 405/606-8088
     E-mail: shorton@coxinet.net

        - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     SARAH R. SCHALMAN-BERGEN, PA
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     Camille Fundora, PA Bar No. 312533
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net


MARATHON OIL: Faces "Bollenbach" Suit in Western Dist. of Okla
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Oil
Company. The case is styled as Barbara Bollenbach, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Marathon Oil Company, including affiliated predecessors and
affiliated successors, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00122-M
(W.D. Okla., Feb. 6, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Vicki
Miles-LaGrange.

Marathon Oil is an American petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company headquartered in the Marathon Oil Tower in
Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM - OKLAHOMA CITY
          12 E California Ave., Suite 200
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 820 4401
          Facsimile: (713) 659 2204
          E-mail: Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com


MISSOURI, USA: Court Denies Jackson's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's second
motion for class certification and supporting memorandum of law
filed in the lawsuit entitled RANDALL JACKSON v. LARRY CRAWFORD,
et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-04018-FJG (W.D. Mo.).  The Plaintiff's
motion to exceed page limits is granted.

Defendant Larry Crawford was the director of the Missouri
Department of Corrections.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Jackson alleges that the Defendants violated
his rights as an atheist by requiring him to participate in
substance abuse treatment programs at the MDOC, such as Alcoholics
Anonymous, which requires its participants to recognize and rely
upon a "Higher Power" to remedy their problems with alcohol.  He
has also sought to list his religion as atheism on the facesheet
to his prison file, but MDOC has denied this request, responding
that atheism is a philosophy, not a religion.

Mr. Jackson has sought to certify these classes under Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All prisoners who are eligible or ordered to receive
     substance abuse treatment in one of MDOC's substance abuse
     treatment programs and who would object to the faith-based
     requirements of those programs, if MDOC made clear the
     availability of a genuinely secular, non-faith-based
     program, and the prisoners could trust MDOC not to prolong
     their custody because they objected to the religious
     components or selected a secular path; and

     All prisoners in MDOC's custody who do not believe in a
     god.

Judge Gaitan, among other things, opines that the Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate numerosity and that commonality has not been
met to warranty certification.  Judge Gaitan also agrees with the
Defendants that the Plaintiff's injunctive relief claims are both
highly individualized and moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uVXWm5DM


MURPHY OIL: SCOTUS to Hear Waiver Case in October 2017 Term
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Orticelli, Esq. -- jorticelli@carltonfields.com -- and
Jonathan Sterling, Esq. -- jsterling@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the Supreme
Court granted petitions for certiorari in three lawsuits
challenging the legality of arbitration agreements that bar
workers from pursuing class actions.  The Court consolidated the
cases, Murphy Oil USA Inc., Epic Systems Corp., and Ernst & Young
LLP for oral argument to resolve a circuit spit over whether
arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing work-
related claims as a group violate the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).

On February 8, the Supreme Court stated that it will not hear
argument on these cases until the 2017 term -- which begins in
October.  The issue is of significant concern to employers, many
of whom see class action waivers as a way to reduce both legal
exposure and expense.  If enforceable, class action waivers can
keep disputes with employees in arbitration and out of court.
Whether such constraints on class action litigation are legal has
been and remains a hotly contested issue, with the National Labor
Relations Board ruling in numerous cases that class action waivers
are unenforceable.


NFL ENTERPRISES: Cheerleaders File Class Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NFL Enterprises LLC dba National Football
League (NFL), Forty Niners Football Company LLC, The Oakland
Raiders, a California limited partnership, Chargers Football
Company LLC, The Los Angeles Rams LLC, The Arizona Cardinals
Football Club LLC, Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC, Baltimore
Ravens Inc., Buffalo Bills LLC, Panthers Football LLC, Cincinnati
Bengals Inc., The Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., PDB Sports
Ltd., dba Denver Broncos, The Detroit Lions Inc., Houston Texans
Inc., Indianapolis Colts Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars LLC, Kansas
City Chiefs Football Club Inc., Miami Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota
Vikings Football LLC, New England Patriots LLC, The New Orleans
Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership, New York Jets LLC,
Philadelphia Eagles LLC, Seattle Seahawks LLC, Buccaneers Limited
Partnership dba Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tennessee Football Inc.,
Pro-Football Inc. dba Washington Redskins, Defendants, NFL Member
Teams and with NFL, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00402, (N.D. Ga.,
January 30, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and costs of litigation and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individual team
cheerleaders, who complain of a low, flat wage for each game
performed, unpaid rehearsal time and community outreach events and
inhibition from performing other cheerleading work professionally
outside NFL events. Plaintiff was specifically employed by the
49ers from approximately May 2013 through February 2014.

NFL, which maintains its offices at 345 Park Avenue, New York, New
York, is an unincorporated association consisting of separately
owned professional football teams that operate out of many
different cities and states in this country.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Brien, Esq.
      BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One Sansome Street, Thirty-Fourth Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Phone: (415) 433-4800
      Fax: (415) 433-4841


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Baksh" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group,
Inc. The case is captioned as Anthony Baksh, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland
Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00664 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
6, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: jmizrahi@sassonlaw.com
          alan@sassonlaw.com


ORACLE CORP: Salespeople File Class Action Over Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Hall, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal, reports
that a $150 million class action lawsuit filed against Oracle
Corp. on Feb. 14 claims the tech giant bilked sales employees of
millions of dollars in earned commission wages.

The complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, alleged that Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) retroactively
increased quotas or decreased commission rates on past sales in
order to pay sales employees less than what their existing
compensation plans required.  The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid
commission wages and are requesting an injunction on behalf of a
class of California sales employees.  Oracle denied the
allegations.

Redwood City-based Oracle employed a policy called a "re-plan" to
reduce commissions earned on completed sales, the complaint
alleges, and re-planned employees after commission wages had
already been paid.  Oracle "clawed back" payments by withholding
newly earned commissions until the employees had reimbursed the
company, the lawsuit alleges.

Oracle's retroactive re-plans were a "willful and systematic
scheme designed to align commissions with financial forecasts and
bottom line goals," the plaintiffs say.

"Oracle coerces employees into accepting re-plans by threatening
that if they fail to accept the new commission plans within 24
hours, they will not be paid pending commissions at all,"
according to the lawsuit.  "Even if a bold employee refuses to
agree to an inferior re-plan, Oracle barrels ahead anyway,
applying the re-plan terms to both past and future sales."

Oracle's commission policies and practices violated numerous
California Labor Code requirements and resulted in damages of more
than $150 million to California employees over a four-year period,
according to the filing.

Plaintiff Marcella Johnson said that she was one of the typical
sales employees who was subjected to a retroactive re-plan that
reduced her commission payments.  She claimed that Oracle demanded
that she pay back a substantial amount of her earned commissions
that had been paid before the re-plan.

"California law does not allow a company to point to fine print
that supposedly allows it to reduce commissions after the fact,"
Xinying Valerian -- xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com -- a lawyer at
San Francisco-based Sanford Heisler, said in a statement.  "We
think all employers should honor the commission formulas that they
have provided sales employees and be held accountable for paying
employees the commission they have earned."


PETCO ANIMAL: Overtime Pay Sought in "Cote" Labor Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cote, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.,
Petco Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10171, (D.
Mass., January 31, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, and treble and liquidated damages
pursuant to Massachusetts General Law.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal places of business at 10850 Via Fontera, San Diego,
California, operating more than 1,150 specialty retail stores
nationwide, selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies and
related goods and services.

Plaintiff was employed from May 2009 to January 2015 as an
Assistant Store Manager at Defendants' store in North Andover,
Massachusetts. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Michael H. Reed, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

            - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801


REMINGTON: Presents Defective Rifle Settlement Before Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to FOX 4's John Holt, the federal class action lawsuit
that was highlighted in the news agency's report on federal gun
recall power limits took center stage at the Whittaker Federal
Courthouse in downtown Kansas City on Feb. 14.

The class action, which includes a metro area plaintiff, alleged
Remington knew it had defective triggers in its 700 series rifles
dating back to 1947, but failed to fix the flaw until 2006.  It's
estimated more than 7 million of the defective rifles could be out
there, though it's unknown how many are still in use.

At issue is triggers that fire even though they are not touched.
The guns have killed and maimed, and Remington has also faced
individual lawsuits.

Lawyers from Remington and the gun owners reached a settlement
after years of negotiation, and on Feb. 14 they presented it
before Federal Judge Ortrie Smith.

Nine states have objected to the settlement.  They joined other
objectors in court on Feb. 14 arguing the settlement isn't good
enough.

Remington and the plaintiffs argue the important thing is to get
guns repaired, which is at the heart of the settlement.  But so
far, only about 22,000 claims have been filed, a fact that
concerns Judge Smith.  He questioned whether notice has been
adequate, and if paying gun owners might be a better remedy.

The attorneys general also raised the low claim rate argument, as
well as the fact that Remington would be off the hook for an
estimated half-a-billion dollars in claims.  That fact was also
noted by the judge.

The settlement supporters say notice efforts have included emails,
posters, social media and radio, and that gun owners would have 18
months to file for the trigger retrofit.  That process lawyers
noted, was an easy on-line system that would allow the gun owners
to ship their guns to licensed repair shops, or in some cases, to
Remington itself.

In the settlement, Remington does not admit the trigger is
defective, but agrees to the repairs at no cost to the owners.

Attorneys are seeking 12 million dollars in legal fees, another
aspect troubling to the judge given the claims rate so far. But
the lawyers argue case law does not make that a factor to
consider.

The Remington case was part of our FOX 4 story on the laws that
prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from ordering
recalls on guns or ammunition.  It's rooted in the 2nd Amendment
and fears by those who oppose recall powers for the federal
government as potentially a "slippery slope" toward confiscation
of firearms. Gun manufacturers can voluntarily recall guns, but
they can't be ordered to do so.

Judge Smith heard about three hours of argument, and took the
settlement under advisement.  He says he hopes to rule in the next
30 days.


REWALK ROBOTICS: "Deng" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qian Deng, David Hershlikovitz, Jackie888, Inc., Michael C.
Kemmerling, Narbeh Nathan, and Paul Sislin, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rewalk
Robotics Ltd., Larry Jasinski, Ami Kraft, Amit Goffer, Jeff Dykan,
Hadar Ron, Asaf Shinar, Wayne B. Weisman, Yasushi Ichiki, Aryeh
Dan, Glenn Muir, Barclays Capital Inc., Jeffries LLC and Canaccord
Genuity Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10169, (D. Mass.,
January 31, 2017), seeks damages and other remedies as set forth
in the Securities Act of 1933; reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees;
and such other and further relief.

ReWalk is a medical device company that designs develops and
markets wearable robotic exoskeletons for people with spinal cord
injuries. ReWalk became a public company on September 12, 2014
when it completed its IPO and issued 3,450,000 ordinary shares and
raised $41.4 million. On February 25, 2016, it was discovered that
ReWalk failed to disclose that the Company was wholly unprepared
or unable to comply with the extensive postmarket regulatory
requirements set forth by the United States Food and Drug
Administration. ReWalk's stock dropped over 22%, thereby causing
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class substantial damages in
connection with their purchases of ReWalk ordinary shares.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020

            - and -

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56
      126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508

            - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06903
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171

            - and -

      Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
      Joseph Gentile, Esq.
      14 Bond Street, Suite 212
      Great Neck, NY
      Telephone: 516-699-8890
      Facsimile: 516-699-8968


RICE ENERGY: Robinson Moves to Certify Class of Consultants
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DYSON ROBINSON, each
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RICE
ENERGY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00985-CRE (W.D. Pa.), files with
the Court a motion for conditional certification.

Mr. Robinson also seeks approval of his proposed notice and
consent form, and procedure for sending notice.

In his complaint, Mr. Robinson alleges that Rice classified its
wellsite/drillsite consultants and flowback/well-testing
consultants as independent contractors and did not pay overtime
wages.  He contends that instead, Rice maintained a uniform day-
rate practice applicable to all putative class members.  He argues
that Rice's pay practice flagrantly violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QMI5Qh3i


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: "Phillips" Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Latrina Phillips, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC;
and Morgan Southern, Inc., which will do business in California as
Morgan Southern Trucking, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01072,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00164-LJO-SAB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

Roadrunner Intermodal provides intermodal drayage solutions in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Gene Emilio, Esq.
          Justin G Schmidt, Esq.
          Laurie M Cortez, Esq.
          EMILIO LAW GROUP
          12832 Valley View Street Suite 106
          Garden Grove, CA 92845
          Telephone: (714) 379 6239
          Facsimile: (714) 379 5444

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
          Alaina Cathrine Hawley, Esq.
          James H Hanson, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN,
          LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255 7181
          Facsimile: (312) 422 1224
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com
                  ahawley@scopelitis.com
                  cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORT: "Goss" Seeks Damages from Share Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Goss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.,
Mark A. Diblasi and Peter R. Armbruster, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00144, (E.D. Wisc., January 31, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, plus counsel fees and expert fees, and
extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Roadrunner is a Delaware corporation providing asset-light
transportation and logistics service as well as global supply
chain solutions. DiBlasi is the Company's chief executive officer
while Armbruster is its Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting, specifically
its financial statements in beginning of 2014 overstated the
estimated results of operations and contained errors relating to
unrecorded expenses from unreconciled balance sheet accounts
including cash, driver and other receivables as well as line-haul
and other driver payables.

Plaintiff purchased Roadrunner common stock and lost substantially
as share prices dropped as a result of corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Wagner, Esq.
      WAGNER LAW GROUP, S.C.
      839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 278-7000
      Fax: (414) 278-7590
      Email: ksw@wagner-lawgroup.com


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Certification of Class Sought in "Dickon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dickon moves for an order certifying the case styled
RICHARD DICKON, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC, a New
York Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH
25, Case No. 2:15-cv-07961-SCM (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class
action and granting preliminary approval of the parties' class
settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify this class:

     All natural persons with addresses in the State of New
     Jersey, against whom Rubin & Rothman filed a complaint in a
     lawsuit, between November 14, 2014, and September 25, 2015,
     in connection with the collection of a consumer debt on
     behalf of Toyota, which indicated Toyota was seeking to
     collect late charges or attorney's fees.

The complaint was filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which alleges Rubin & Rothman violated the FDCPA by
sending consumers initial collection letters that failed to inform
consumers late charges and attorneys' fees would be added to their
debts if/when a lawsuit was filed and, therefore, failed to
correctly state the amount of the debt owed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hAdNw2SP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


RUI CREDIT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RUI Credit Services,
Inc. The case is captioned as Avraham Miller, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. RUI
Credit Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00679
(E.D.N.Y. Fla., Feb. 6, 2017).

RUI, founded in 1996, provides accounts receivable management
(collection) services and customer contact services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SFPP LP: Landowners Seek to Certify Class in Right-of-Way Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin and Susan Wells, as trustees of the Martin and Susan Wells
Revocable Trust; and Sandra L. Hinshaw, as trustee of the Sandra
L. Hinshaw Living Trust, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled In re
SFPP Right-of-Way Claims, Case No. 8:15-cv-00718-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying a class of:

     "all landowners who, from January 1, 1983 to the
      date of class certification, own or have owned land in fee
      adjoining and underlying the railroad right-of-way granted
      under the Land Grants, or through condemnation, under which
      the pipeline is located within the State of California."

The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order certifying a
Current Owner Sub-Class of:

     "all landowners who, as of the date of class certification,
      own land in fee adjoining and underlying the railroad
      right-of-way granted under the Land Grants, or through
      condemnation, under which the pipeline is located within
      the State of California."

Excluded from the Class and the Current Owner Subclass are the
Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors,
affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors, and assigns.  Also excluded are the United States of
America, the State of California, any governmental entity, any
railroad, and the judges and court personnel in this case and any
members of their immediate family.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order
certifying for class treatment common questions.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order appointing Plaintiffs
Sandra L. Hinshaw, Martin Wells, and Susan Wells, as
representatives of the class, and appointing Norman E. Siegel,
Esq., and Thomas S. Stewart, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 1, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QAeaCE9k

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
          Elizabeth G. McCulley, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: stewart@swm.legal
                  mcculley@swm.legal

               - and -

          Steven M. Wald, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          12747 Olive Blvd., Suite 280
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 720-6190
          Facsimile: (314) 400-7724
          E-mail: wald@swm.legal

               - and -

          John W. Cowden, Esq.
          Angela M. Higgins, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 471-2121
          Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
          E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
                  higgins@bscr-law.com

               - and -

          J. Robert Sears, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
          1010 Market Street, Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 231-2925
          Facsimile: (314) 231-4857
          E-mail: sears@bscr-law.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq.
          John T. Cu, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com
                  jcu@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


SIENTRA INC: May 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Pomerantz LLP regarding the Sientra, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:15-cv-07548-SJO-RAO
JOHN M. FLYNN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

SIENTRA, INC., HANI ZEINI, MATTHEW
PIGEON, NICHOLAS SIMON, TIMOTHY
HAINES, R. SCOTT GREER, KEVIN O'BOYLE,
JEFFREY NUGENT, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.,
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & CO., INC., LEERINK
PARTNERS LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & CO.,
L.L.C.,
Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Master File No. CIV 536013
CLASS ACTION

OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION &
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs.

SIENTRA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTIONS

TO:
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED SIENTRA, INC. ("SIENTRA" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS
FOR THE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 2015 SECONDARY OFFERING OR THAT
PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SIENTRA COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD MAY 14, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 28, 2015 (THE
"CLASS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY TWO COURTS. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 22,
2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable S. James Otero at the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Courtroom 10C, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012, and a hearing will be held on May 31, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2, Courtroom
2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine
whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated December 2, 2016 ("Stipulation")
of the above-captioned actions ("Actions") for $10,900,000 in cash
should be approved by the Courts as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Actions ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
and (3) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Courts,
as fair, reasonable and adequate.

The Actions are securities class actions brought on behalf of
those Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Sientra pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus ("Registration Statement") issued in connection with
Sientra's September 2015 secondary public offering and/or who
purchased or acquired Sientra common stock during the period May
14, 2015 through and including October 28, 2015 ("Class Members"),
against Sientra, certain of its key executives and directors, and
Underwriters of the secondary offering (collectively,
"Defendants") for allegedly misstating and omitting material facts
concerning alleged particle contamination on Sientra's primary
products, silicone breast implants, at Sientra's Silimed
manufacturing plant in Brazil. Federal Plaintiffs alleged claims
under Secs. 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Secs.
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. State
Plaintiffs alleged claims under Secs. 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs'
allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SIENTRA COMMON STOCK (1)
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 2015 OFFERING, OR (2) DURING THE PERIOD MAY
14, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 28, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THESE ACTIONS.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than May 8, 2017) or by submitting
electronically no later than May 8, 2017.  Your failure to submit
your Proof of Claim by May 8, 2017, will subject your claim to
rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in
connection with the settlement of the Actions. If you are a member
of the Class and do not request exclusion, you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Actions, including, but not limited to, the Judgments, whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation
(which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined
terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents,
online at www.sientrashareholderlitigation.com, or by writing to:

          Sientra Shareholder Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 30252
          College Station, TX 77842-3252
          Phone: 1-866-801-6780

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Courts, or the
Clerks of the Courts. Inquiries may also be made to a
representative of Plaintiffs' Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Shareholder Relations
          Rick Nelson
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Phone: 800-449-4900

          POMERANTZ LLP
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
   Chicago, IL 60603

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
APRIL 24, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENTS ENTERED IN THE ACTIONS EVEN
IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.
ANY OBJECTIONS MAY BE FILED WITH EITHER COURT AND MUST BE SENT TO
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR BY MAY 8, 2017,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: February 6, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER


ST CLAIR, MI: Residents File Class Action Over Sewer Backups
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Dalbey, writing for St. Clair Shores Patch, reports that
Susan Chadwick, Teresa Davenport and Mark Lysakowsky filed the
lawsuit Jan. 12 in Macomb County Circuit Court.  According to the
complaint, they brought "the action on behalf of themselves and
all other city of St. Clair Shores residents who have suffered
from flooding and physical invasion of their property by sewage,
water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors, thereby causing
material injury to their properties."

The lawsuit asks for damages for each of the plaintiffs in excess
of $25,000, plus attorney fees.

The plaintiffs, who live on Beste and Elizabeth streets, accuse
city officials of failing to update sewer infrastructure, the St.
Clair Shores Sentinel reported.  Sewer backups were reported on
July 8 and Aug. 15-16, according to the lawsuit.

"It's not sexy to take care of sewage pipes. It's sexy to take
care of the Nautical Mile," Detroit attorney Steve Liddle, who
backed a state law that allows residents to sue the government for
sewage backups, told the newspaper.


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hedlund" Suit Over IPO Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HEDLUND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
IVAN BERGSTEIN, and DAVID GIONCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00832 (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in
relation to its secondary public offering on or about January 20,
2017 that a cancer patient in a Stemline clinical trial tied to
SL-401 died from a severe side effect on January 18, 2017

STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on the discovery, acquisition, development,
and commercialization of proprietary oncology therapeutics in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com


SUBWAY: Plaintiffs in Text Message Class Action Appeal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jireh Gibson, writing for Forbes, reports that plaintiffs suing
Subway over a text message have appealed a federal judge's
decision to dismiss their class action lawsuit and send their
claims to arbitration.

On Jan. 31, David and Yehuda Rahmany filed their notice of intent
to appeal U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour's Jan. 5 decision
in their class action.  Their appeal will be heard by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The text read: "This T-Mobile Tuesday, Score a free 6" Oven
Roasted Chicken sub at SUBWAY, just for being w/T-Mobile. Ltd.
Supply. Get app for details: http://t-mo.co/"

However, just two days later, the plaintiffs voluntarily dropped
T-Mobile from the complaint, yet failed to amend it.  Therefore,
all claims against T-Mobile and Subway remained against Subway.
This oversight may have been the extra push Subway needed.

In August 2015, the plaintiffs had activated telephone contracts
with T-Mobile.  One of the service agreements required arbitration
of all disputes.

The notice states in bold print that T-Mobile requires arbitration
of disputes unless customers opt out within 30 days of activation.
The other agreement in all caps reads, "Any and all claims or
disputes in any way related to or concerning this [agreement] our
privacy policy, our services, equipment devices or products."
Both agreements included an opt-out provision.

Judge Coughenour applied California law to the Rahmanys' claims.
When the plaintiffs claimed the arbitration agreement was
unconscionable, Judge Coughenour found the cases they cited
contained factual scenarios not present in the Rahmanys' case.

Judge Coughenour wrote that the plaintiffs could have opted out of
the arbitration clause within 30 days of activating their phones
but did not.  Therefore, the court found that the text message was
within the scope of the arbitration agreement since it was not
substantively or procedurally unconscionable.

The court used its discretion to dismiss the case because under
California law, equitable estoppel applied to allow Subway, a non-
signatory, to enforce the agreement.

The victory for Subway was the most recent of a string of class
action suits dismissed in favor of arbitration since a Supreme
Court ruling in a similar TCPA case in 2011, J.R. Skrabanek,
senior counsel for the Snell Law Firm, said.

When asked if what happened in the Subway victory is common, he
said, "Yes.  Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T v.
Concepcion, using arbitration clauses to defeat class actions has
been an increasingly popular and effective tactic."

Why did the court apply T-Mobile's arbitration provision to
Subway? "Because even though it was a joint promotion, it was sent
by, through, and for T-Mobile customers.  These customers
consented to it when they accepted T-Mobile's services, which
included a mandatory arbitration clause," Skrabanek said.

The Austin, Texas-based attorney suggests that if consumers want
relief from arbitration provisions, they should lobby Congress to
pass a law to overturn the AT&T decision.

"At present, contracts containing arbitration requirements will
almost always be upheld by courts if consumers agree to them when
accepting service," he said.

The Rahmanys are represented by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law
Group.  Their opening brief is due to the Ninth Circuit by May 11,
and Subway's response is due a month later.

Subway is represented by the Seattle firm Corr Cronin Michelson
Baumgardner Foxx & Moore and the Atlanta firm Alston & Bird.


TILE SHOP: May 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding the Tile
Shop Securities Litigation:

BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
FUND; ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and LUC DE WULF,

Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC.; ROBERT A.
RUCKER; THE TILE SHOP, INC.; TIMOTHY C.
CLAYTON; PETER J. JACULLO III; JWTS, INC.;
PETER H. KAMIN; TODD KRASNOW; ADAM L.
SUTTIN; WILLIAM E. WATTS; ROBERT W.
BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CJS SECURITIES, INC.;
HOULIHAN LOKEY CAPITAL, INC.; PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO.; SIDOTI & COMPANY, LLC;
TELSEY ADVISORY GROUP LLC; and WEDBUSH
SECURITIES, INC.,
Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION,
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED TILE SHOP HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 22,
2012 AND JANUARY 28, 2014, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS")

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation of Settlement
dated January 13, 2017 (the "Stipulation") and the Notice
described below, which both can be viewed and/or downloaded at
www.tileshopsecuritiessettlement.com.

Please read this notice carefully.  If you are a member of the
Class, your rights will be affected by a class action lawsuit
pending in this Court, and you may be entitled to share in the
Settlement described below.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, that the parties to the
above-captioned action (the "Action") have reached a proposed
settlement for $9,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.  A hearing will
be held on May 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Ann D.
Montgomery at the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, 13W U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55415, to determine whether: (i) the Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the releases set forth in the Stipulation (and Notice described
below) should be granted; (iii) the Plan of Distribution should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Class Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead
Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of costs and expenses in
connection with their representation of the Class, should be
approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  A detailed Notice of Class Action
Determination, Proposed Settlement, and Hearing on Settlement
("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") are
currently being mailed to Class Members explaining Class Members'
rights in connection with the Action and Settlement and the
process for submitting a Claim Form.  If you have not yet received
the detailed Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by visiting www.tileshopsecuritiessettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

          Tile Shop Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
          P.O. Box 43451
          Providence, RI 02940-3451
          (844) 330-1184
          info@tileshopsecuritiessettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel:

          Matthew Mustokoff, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA  19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          www.ktmc.com

          Rick Nelson
          Shareholder Relations
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (800) 449-4900
          www.rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 3, 2017.  If
you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than April 3, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Distribution of the net settlement
proceeds, Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses,
and/or Lead Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of costs and
expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Class Counsel and representative Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than April 3, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants,
or their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims
Administrator as listed above.

DATED:  January 19, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of Minnesota


TRIDENT INDUSTRIAL: "Leija" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Noe Leija, Rodrigo Sanchez, Pablo Cruz Sanchez, Pablo Cruz Leija,
Jose Leija, Sr., Jose Leija, Jr., Heriberto Cruz and Fernando
Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Trident Industrial, L.L.C., Case No. 6:17-cv-00221
(W.D. La., January 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant to perform manual labor
including hanging drywall, replacing receptacles, replacing sinks
and tubs, minor demolition, and cleaning, as well as other home
construction/remodelling duties, usually working at least 10-11
hours a day, for at least 7 days a week.

Trident Industrial is an industrial supply company offering
construction and/or remodeling services to include cleaning homes,
light demolition, dry wall and sheetrock work, installing fixtures
and receptacles, installing tubs and showers and sinks in
Louisiana.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LA 70506
      Tel: (337) 534-4043


TRUGREEN INC: 6th Circuit Reverses Ruling in Arbitration Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Kramer, Esq. -- liz.kramer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Ninth, Sixth,
and Third Circuits all recently issued decisions about whether
putative class or collective actions could proceed despite the
existence of arbitration clauses.  In two of those decisions, the
courts found the arbitration agreements did not allow for class
arbitration and therefore dismissed the claims.  In the third, the
court found the arbitration agreement was not applicable to the
dispute.

In Opalinski v. Robert Half Int'l, 2017 WL 395968 (3d Cir. filed
Jan. 30, 2017), the Third Circuit again tackled arbitrability
issues in a case that has gotten the runaround for five years
(district court, then arbitrator, then district court, then
appellate court, back to district court, now back to appellate
court).  The case involves a collective action complaint alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The arbitration
clause between the employees and employer provides for AAA
arbitration.  In its most recent decision, the district court
dismissed the action, finding the arbitration clause did not allow
class arbitration.  On appeal, the Third Circuit reiterated that
courts (not arbitrators) should decide whether class arbitration
is available.  It found that in this case the parties' arbitration
clause does not indicate they agreed to class arbitration.  In
particular, the court found the absence of any explicit mention of
class arbitration was dispositive, and outweighed the fact that
the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under statutes
that allow class litigation.

In another employment dispute, Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 2017
Wl 461099 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017), a class of employees asserted
that the employer had misclassified them as exempt from overtime
pay and asserted a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim.
The arbitration agreement provided "neither You nor the Company
may bring any Claim combined with or on behalf of any other person
or entity, whether on a collective, representative, or class
action basis."  It ended with a severability clause, so that if
any part of the arbitration agreement was invalid, the rest of it
would be enforced.  The employer moved to compel arbitration and
dismiss class or representative claims.  The district court found
the arbitration clause was unconscionable and denied the
employer's motion.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding only two
aspects of the arbitration clause were
unconscionable/unenforceable and those could be severed, allowing
the rest of the arbitration clause to be enforced.  (The two
stinkers: waiver of a representative PAGA claim (see Iskanian);
and a provision allowing only the employer to go to court for
injunctive or equitable relief.)

While the two classes of employees above were not able to continue
prosecuting claims as a group (and had to go to arbitration), a
class of consumers won the right to stay in court in Stevens-
Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., 2017 WL 108032 (6th Cir. Jan. 11,
2017).  In that case the class representative had hired a lawn
care company for one year.  More than six months after the service
contract had been terminated, the class representative received
numerous telemarketing calls from the company, even though her
number was on the Do-Not-Call Registry.  She then sued for
violation of the TCPA.  In response, the lawn care company moved
to compel arbitration, based on its service contract with the
class representative, which "expressly waive[d] any ability to
maintain any Class Action."  The district court compelled
arbitration, and the 6th Circuit reversed.  Although there is
usually a presumption in favor of an arbitration agreement
surviving the expiration of the rest of a contract, the court was
not convinced that the dispute "had its real source in the
contract."  It found that the lawn care service contract was
"irrelevant to this case," since it had completely expired before
the calls took place and the lawn services provided were not at
issue in the TCPA claim.


UNILEVER CANADA: Legal Logik Firm Files "Pink Tax" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Meagher, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
Montreal law firm filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court to
seeking authorization to launch a class action against eight
corporations for what is commonly referred to as an invisible
"Pink Tax."

The so-called "Pink Tax" refers to discriminatory surcharges on a
variety of consumer and personal hygiene products, such as
deodorant, for women.

The Legal Logik firm launched the class-action against Unilever
Canada, Shoppers Drug Mart, Jean Coutu, Uniprix, Metro, Loblaws,
Walmart and Familiprix.

The class action argues that merchants of products for women have
engaged in discriminatory pricing practices, said Jamie Benizri, a
lawyer with Legal Logik.

Ms. Benizri said the class action motion was launched after a
Montreal woman claimed she'd been "discriminated against by way of
price discrimination in the form of products that are more
expensive for females versus their male counterparts for the same
product and same quantity."

"We're talking about the exact same product, same ingredients,
essentially for the same product on a per-gram basis,"
Ms. Benizri said.

"She was paying on average 40 per cent more over certain
products," he said.  "On a per-gram basis it was about 40 per cent
more expensive."

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms strictly prohibits
any form of discrimination based on sex, yet surcharges on
products for women is a practice that continues despite
significant attention from the media," added Michael Simkin, one
of the Legal Logik attorneys who filed the motion.

"We believe this is a practice that should stop and class members
should be compensated for the actual costs as well as damages," he
said.

Asked if the class action will result in compensation for class
members or a reduction in price of certain consumer products, Ms.
Benizri said: "I think it's going to be both. I think the
marketing practices are going to have to catch up to the
discrepancy in prices.  Companies are going to have to be a little
more sensitive and a little more careful with respect to how they
market to males and females.

"I think we will see a shift in the way products are marketed in
very gendered bias way.  So hopefully we'll see gender neutrality
in marketing but I think we are looking to recapture some
compensation for the class members who have been discriminated
against."

Legal Logik said members of the class are requesting reimbursement
for the price difference on products they have purchased, plus $50
in damages and interest for moral damages. Also requested will be
$50 for damages and interest for an "unlawful and intentional
violation of the right to gender equality".

The law firm from estimates that the total of damages, multiplied
by the number of victims, could reach over 100 million dollars.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Seeks to Certify Medallion Holders Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEWART ROSEN, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 3:15-cv-03866-JST (N.D. Cal.), moves
for an order appointing class counsel and certifying this class:

     "All individuals who held a Medallion issued by the City and
      County of San Francisco, through the Division of Taxi and
      Accessible Services of the San Francisco Municipal
      Transportation Agency ("SFMTA") at any time during the
      period from August 25, 2011, four years from the filing of
      the Complaint through the date established by the Court for
      notice of certification of the class (the "Class Period"),
      except for those Medallion holders who run their own
      individual taxi business."

Stewart Rosen challenges UBER's representation regarding safety of
taking rides on cars driven by UBER's driver partners.  He
contends, among other things, that he and all others similarly
situated Medallion Holders are entitled to expenses under the
Lanham Act and that the Defendants have violated California's
False Advertising Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=65nAusje

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Jaffe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD M. JAFFE
          3521 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Telephone: (510) 452-2610
          Facsimile: (510) 452-9125
          E-mail: hmjaffe@gmail.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Newcomb, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN W. NEWCOMB
          770 Menlo Avenue, Suite 101
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 322-7780
          Facsimile: (650) 322-7740
          E-mail: brianwnewcomb@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: ACRL Files Class Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------
Arab American Civil Rights League, Samir Almasmari, Sabah
Almasmary, Hana Almasmari, Mounira Atik, Walid Jammoul, Abubaker
Abbass, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, John Kelly, Secretary of Department of Homeland
Security, Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of Customs and
Border Protection, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00272 (E.D. Mich.,
January 31, 2017), seeks (i) an injunction ordering Defendants to
desist from further illegal detention of returning Arab-Americans,
(ii) judgment declaring that the said executive is unauthorized by
statute and contrary to law, (iii) reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and such other
relief.

ACRL is a non-profit organization and has its principal place of
business at 4917 Schaefer Rd., Dearborn, Michigan 48126, committed
to protecting the civil rights of Arab Americans through education
and advocacy.

Plaintiffs have either been denied ability to return to the United
States or face a real and immediate threat of not being permitted
to travel to Detroit, after President Donald Trump signed an
Executive Order suspending the entry of non-citizens from Iraq,
Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen into the United
States for 90 days.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nabih H. Ayad, Esq.
      AYAD LAW, P.L.L.C.
      645 Griswold St., Ste. 2202
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Tel: (313) 983-4600
      Email: nayad@ayadlaw.com

             - and -

      Helal Farhat, Esq.
      FARHAT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      Counsel for the Arab American Chamber of Commerce
      6053 Chase Rd.
      Dearborn, MI 48126

            - and -

      Nida Samona, Esq.
      Counsel for the Arab Chaldean Council
      363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 300
      Troy, MI 48084

            - and -

      Ali Hammoud, Esq.
      HAMMOUD, DAKHLALLAH & ASSOCIATES
      Counsel for Yemini American Benevolent Association
      6050 Greenfield Rd., Suite 201
      Dearborn, MI 48126

            - and -

      Rula Aoun, Esq.
      Co-Counsel for ACRL
      4917 Schaefer Rd.
      Dearborn, MI 48126

            - and -

      Kassem Dakhlallah, Esq.
      Hammoud, Dakhlallah & Associates
      6050 Greenfield Rd., Suite 201
      Dearborn, MI 48126

            - and -

      Mona Fadlallah, Esq.
      Natalie Qandah, Esq.
      VIDA LAW GROUP, PLLC
      Co-Counsel for ACRL
      43050 Ford Rd., #160
      Canton, MI 48187


UNITED STATES: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Smallwood" Class Suit in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Reggie B. Walton entered an order in the lawsuit styled
WILLIAM H. SMALLWOOD, JR. v. SALLY Q. YATES, Acting Attorney
General of the United States, and MICHAEL YOUNG, Acting Secretary
of the United States Department of Agriculture, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00161-RBW (D.D.C.):

   -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification and appointment of class counsel;

   -- dismissing the Plaintiff's class action complaint; and

   -- closing this case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mdu3PYvU


US WELL SERVICES: Court Certifies Workers Class in "Lackie" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and Court-authorized notice filed in the
lawsuit titled JEFF LACKIE, et al., v. U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03078-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiffs bring the present collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated.  The parties have stipulated to conditional
certification of a putative class defined as:

     All current and former hourly employees who were employed by
     Defendant during the period of December 11, 2012 to
     March 15, 2015, received per diem payments, and worked more
     than forty hours in one or more workweeks in which the per
     diem payments were paid.

The Parties further stipulated that counsel for the Plaintiffs
will serve as lead counsel for the collective action, Jeff Lackie
and William Crandell will serve as the representative plaintiffs,
and USWS will provide the names and last-known contact information
for all putative class members within 21 days of the Court's
approval of the Notice.

In his Opinion and Order, Judge Smith notes that the Court has
altered the Notice consistent with the Opinion and Order and it
has been circulated to counsel of record.  Pursuant to the
agreement of the parties, USWS will produce to lead counsel the
names and last-known contact information for all putative
plaintiffs.

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


VECTOR MARKETING: "Knudsen" Suit Moved to District of Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Knudsen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Vector Marketing Corporation and Cutco Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-01906A, was removed from the Essex County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-10200-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Denise J. Casper.

Vector Marketing is the domestic sales arm of Cutco Corporation,
an Olean, New York based cutlery manufacturer.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert M. Hale, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570 1252
          Facsimile: (617) 227 8591
          E-mail: rhale@goodwinprocter.com


WELLS FARGO: Torres Moves for Certification of Consultants Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned NICOLE TORRES, TANYA
COLLINS, ANDREW HOEFLIN, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A. a national association; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-02225-PSG-KK (C.D. Cal.), move the
Court for an order certifying classes for the Plaintiffs' claims
that Wells Fargo underpaid the meal break premiums paid to Home
Mortgage Consultants and derivative claims.

The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order appointing
Plaintiff Tanya Collins as class representative, and appointing
Kawahito Westrick LLP as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 20, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn C. Westrick, Esq.
          KAWAHITO WESTRICK LLP
          10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 405
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5300
          Facsimile: (310) 593-2520
          E-mail: swestrick@kswlawyers.com


YAHOO INC: Warns Users of Malicious Activity on Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------
Raphael Satter and Paisley Dodds, writing for The Associated
Press, report that Yahoo is warning users of potentially malicious
activity on their accounts between 2015 and 2016, the latest
development in the internet company's investigation of a mega-
breach that exposed 1 billion users' data several years ago.

Yahoo confirmed on Feb. 15 that it was notifying users that their
accounts had potentially been compromised but declined to say how
many people were affected.

In a statement, Yahoo tied some of the potential compromises to
what it has described as the "state-sponsored actor" responsible
for the theft of private data from more than 1 billion user
accounts in 2013 and 2014.  The stolen data included email
addresses, birth dates and answers to security questions.

The catastrophic breach raised questions about Yahoo's security
and destabilized the company's deal to sell its email service,
websites and mobile applications to Verizon Communications.

The malicious activity that was the subject of the user warnings
revolved around the use of "forged cookies" -- strings of data
which are used across the web and can sometimes allow people to
access online accounts without re-entering their passwords.

A warning message sent to Yahoo users on Feb. 15 read: "Based on
the ongoing investigation, we believe a forged cookie may have
been used in 2015 or 2016 to access your account." Some users
posted the ones they received to Twitter.

"Within six people in our lab group, at least one other person has
gotten this email," Joshua Plotkin, a biology professor at the
University of Pennsylvania, said.  "That's just anecdotal of
course, but for two people in a group of six to have gotten it, I
imagine it's a considerable amount."

Mr. Plotkin said in a telephone interview that he wasn't concerned
because he used his Yahoo email for messages that were "close to
spam." In the message he posted to Twitter , he joked that
"hopefully the cookie was forged by a state known for such
delicacies."


ZEEKREWARDS: Founder Faces 15-Year Sentence for Role in Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the founder of ZeekRewards has
been sentenced to nearly 15 years behind bars for his lead role in
an $850 million online Ponzi scheme that bilked nearly a million
people in the U.S. and abroad.

Paul Burks, 70, was given three concurrent prison sentences of 14
years and eight months on Feb. 13 after being convicted in July on
four felony fraud charges, news outlets reported.

Mr. Burks had been free on bond for the past 4 1/2 years and could
have been sentenced to up to 59 years under federal sentencing
guidelines.

U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn Jr. indicated Burks most likely
will spend his final days in prison, given his multiple health
issues, including cancer.

"While this sentence is much lower than called for by the
sentencing guidelines, it is still a severe punishment,
particularly given our client's age and health," said Noell Tin,
one of Burks' attorneys. An appeal of Burks' July conviction is in
the works, Tin said.

Mr. Burks owned ZeekRewards.com, a Lexington, North Carolina-based
website which gave incentives for recruiting new investors to an
online auction site Burks also ran called Zeekler.  On that site,
customers were charged up to $1 to bid for the chance to buy
heavily discounted consumer products such as iPads.

The site made fanciful promises of 125 percent returns at a time
when the economy limped out of the Great Recession.

The scheme would have needed a miracle on the order of "the loaves
and the fishes" to make good on that pledge, Judge Cogburn said.

Investments were capped at $10,000, but people could invest on
behalf of their spouses, children or other relatives.  Some
mortgaged homes to raise their investment and almost 90 percent of
the people who bought in to the operation lost money.

"The scheme got out of hand, more than Mr. Burks may have thought
was going to happen," the judge said.  "But anyone could have seen
what was going to occur outside himself and his (marketing)
cheerleaders."


* Lack of Registration Process Hampers Collective Action in UK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Priest, Esq. -- LaurenPriest@emmlegal.com -- of Edmonds,
Marshall, McMahon, in an article For Lexology, reports on class
actions in the USA and United Kingdom.

What is a class action in the USA?

A class action is a collective claim in which the court awards
permission to an individual or individuals to bring the claims of
others similarly situated (the class members) in a single case.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes the
model for most class actions. Under Rule 23(a), one or more
members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on
behalf of all members if:

   -- the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

   -- there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
the claims or defences of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defences of the class; and

   -- the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

The claims of the class members must be so similar to those of the
class representative that a trial of the representative's claim
can appropriately decide the outcome for all class members. A
class action must define the class, the claims, the issues, and
appoint class counsel (Rule 23(c))[1].

Class actions operate on an opt-out regime, whereby an action is
pursued on behalf of a defined class of unnamed claimants, who are
deemed included in the action and are bound by the outcome unless
they "opt out".  There is clearly a presumption in the USA that
everybody will enjoy litigation!

Due to the "opt out" regime in the United States, there is less
importance placed upon identifying each and every potential
claimant prior to the filing of a class action as parties are
included by default.  Depending on the type of action and class,
notice requirements fall in place following the certification of a
class action including the giving of notice that the court will
exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion and the
binding effect of a class judgment on class members.  However, it
may sometimes be difficult to identify the individual members of a
class in order to personally notify them due to the sheer number
of members.

What sort of cases would be appropriate for Class Actions in the
USA?

Class actions are often brought in "David v Goliath" circumstances
where an individual does not have the resources to challenge a
multinational company i.e. where a bank has charged excessive fees
on a certain category of customer accounts.  The class may be
defined as including all customers who fell victim to the bank's
excessive fees.  This could include hundreds, if not thousands of
customers, rather than one individual.  The downside of the "opt
out" regime is that there may be individuals who are not aware
they have been overcharged yet are directly affected by the
outcome of the action unless they opt out.  It is for this reason
that individual class members should receive notice of the class
action if they can be identified using reasonable effort.

Class actions can lead to large scale pay-outs. In 2005, investors
in the multinational media company, AOL Time Warner, received a
settlement of US2.5 billion when suing the company for fraud under
federal securities law.  They claimed the company disguised its
poor performance between 1998 - 2002 by forging multiple
transactions which they estimated to inflate the company's value
by US1.7 billion.

In 2014, the Citigroup Banking and Financial Services Corporation
agreed to pay US7 billion to settle a class action brought by
investors who acquired shares between February 2007 and April
2008.  The Claim was bought against Citigroup and some of its
senior executives who misrepresented the company's exposure to
collateralised debt obligations ("CDOs") which were a high risk
investment and therefore, a major factor in the 2007 - 2009 US
property crash.

How do people know they are included in group litigation in the
USA?

If a class claims individualised fiscal awards, the class members
are entitled to notice that the class has been defined and
certified by the court.  A notice campaign must then be approved
by the court.  However, if the class claims equitable or a
collective award, notice is not required but may be provided.

The purpose of a notice is to inform class members of the
existence of the class action and their right to "opt out" of the
class.  Members must also be informed if they do not opt out, any
judgment will be applicable to them and they will not be permitted
to bring an individual claim at a later stage.

Depending on the nature of the claims and type of class, notice
can be provided by mail, email, publication in newspapers and
magazines, advertisements on television, radio and internet
websites and by any other method likely to come to the attention
of class members.  Solicitors may also provide information
regarding a class action they are investigating on their firm
website.

Why don't we have class actions in the United Kingdom?

Class actions are not permitted in the United Kingdom per se
although we do have collective forms of litigation available such
as "Group Litigation Orders".

A Group Litigation Order ("GLO") is an order under Civil Procedure
Rule (CPR) 19.11 to provide for the case management of claims
which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law (the
"GLO issues")[5].

A GLO allows individuals who have claims (whether issued or not)
giving rise to common or related issues of fact or law, to join
forces.  This has many advantages such as splitting the costs
between the group litigants, increasing the availability of
similar evidence and the sharing of knowledge and litigation risk.
It is important to note that parties do not have an absolute right
to proceed under a GLO and the Court must grant permission to the
Applicants to litigate in this manner.  Under CPR 19.11, the Court
may make a GLO where there are, or are likely to be, a number of
claims giving rise to the GLO issues.

An application for a GLO may be made at any time before or after
any relevant claims have been issued and may be made either by a
claimant or a defendant.  If a successful application is made to
the court in accordance with CPR Part 23, the Court can manage all
claims covered by the order in a coordinated way.  Under CPR
19.11, a GLO will establish a group register in which the relevant
claims will be entered, specify the GLO issues that will identify
the claims to be managed as a group, and specify which court will
manage those claims.  All judgments, orders and directions of the
court will be binding on all claims within the GLO unless ordered
otherwise.

Most recently in the United Kingdom, the VW Emissions Action
Group, made up of many thousands of motorists affected by the
Volkswagen emissions scandal, has filed an application with the
High Court for a GLO order against car manufacturers Volkswagen,
Audi, Skoda and SEAT.  It is alleged that the manufacturers
deceived customers as to the "green nature" of the cars in
question by installing devices which duped emissions tests.
Volkswagen have already had to pay US14.1 billion towards
settlement in relation to a class action brought in the United
States.

If UK litigators wish to conduct GLO litigation, there is no
straightforward process for finding others who may have claims
which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law.
Further, Claimants in the UK, must "opt in" -- i.e. agree to be
party to the litigation and make an application to be included.
This is in stark contrast to class actions in the US whereby those
falling under the definition of the "class" are presumed to be
included in the proceedings and must "opt out" if they do not want
to be bound by the rulings of the court.

How do lawyers in the UK find other claims (issued or otherwise)
which are sufficiently similar to apply for a GLO?

There is no definitive procedure in place whereby solicitors and
claimants are adequately able to locate others who may have claims
which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law.

Solicitors may advertise their involvement in group claims through
postings on their firm's website in the hope that additional
claimants may come forward.  Such publicity must meet the
standards set by the solicitors' code of conduct such as the rule
prohibiting the solicitation of clients.

Another option is to search the court database for cases currently
filed but yet to be determined.  You may search cases by party
name and division.  This may enable a party to identify a claim or
multiple claims that are already afoot and bear notable
similarities to their own.  This can be a difficult task as the
database provides limited information as to the subject matter of
proceedings and may produce hundreds, if not thousands of
individual cases currently before the courts.

In the event that a GLO is awarded by the court, there is further
opportunity to identify other claims (whether issued or not) which
give rise to common or related issues of fact or law and invite
them to join the GLO.  When a GLO is approved, the court will
commonly order the parties to publicise the existence of the GLO
so that all relevant claims can be managed within it.  This
usually takes the form of advertisements approved by the court if
the parties are unable to agree.

Once a GLO is ordered, a copy of the order should also be supplied
to the Law Society.  Solicitors acting for GLO claimants are
encouraged to contact the Law Society Multi Party Actions
Information Service to identify other potential claims giving rise
to the same issues.

A list of GLO's is also maintained on the justice website, which
includes details of the lead solicitors and case issues defined by
the GLO.

Summary

The advantages of class actions and GLO's are numerous however
both systems suffer comparable difficulties in identifying those
individuals whom have similar potential claims against a
defendant.  In the USA, difficulties arise due to the sheer number
of potential claimants included within a class.  In the United
Kingdom, the difficulties arise as we lack a registration process
or other such mechanism by which people adequately describe or
enter their existing claims. Considering the advantages of a GLO,
perhaps more thought should be given to sharing of such relevant
information.


* Labor Dep't. Seeks to Delay Fiduciary Rule Applicability Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Forbes, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that President
Donald Trump's Department of Labor moved one step closer to
putting the brakes on the agency's fiduciary rule for retirement
investment advisers late Feb. 9.

The agency sent to the White House's Office of Management and
Budget a proposal to delay the rule's applicability date, one week
after Trump ordered the agency to review the Obama-era rule that
aims to protect retirement investors from conflicted advice.

The proposal won't be publicly available until it clears the OMB,
but it's expected to delay the rule by 180 days and open a short
public comment period.  The move by the DOL came just one day
after a federal judge in Texas upheld the rule and refused to
delay its implementation, which is scheduled for April 10.  Three
federal courts have now upheld the rule.

Industry groups have attempted to kill the rule since it was in
its infancy in 2010 when the DOL originally proposed it.  Many of
those groups hailed Trump's Feb. 3 memorandum that the DOL review
the rule before moving forward, so it's likely that the agency
will be flooded with comments to delay the regulation.

Litigation Risks

Trump's memo listed three factors for the DOL to consider: whether
the rule would eliminate consumers' choice of products, cause
disruption in the retirement market to the detriment of consumers
or cause an increase in litigation.  A positive finding on any one
of those factors would result in cause for a proposal to rescind
or revise the rule, the memo said.

The rule gets its teeth by allowing individual customers to pursue
class actions, so the third factor alone may be a reason to kill
or change it.  Currently, disputes between customers and firms are
handled through arbitration on an individual basis.

Although the DOL's estimated average costs for the entire broker-
dealer industry is in the "right ballpark," it's probably
underestimated for the very largest firms, Michael Wong, a senior
equity analyst at Morningstar Inc., told Bloomberg BNA.

"Our estimate of baseline ongoing compliance costs plus our
downside scenario class action settlement at the firm-level for
some of the largest wealth management firms can be over 15 times
higher than the Department of Labor's $1.8 million ongoing cost
estimate for large broker-dealers," Mr. Wong said in an e-mail.

But the DOL may find it a challenge to conclude that the rule will
result in higher litigation costs because of the high hurdle that
clients have to jump over to join a class action,
Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer
Federation of America, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.

"The class action remedy will only be successful where a firm is
systematically violating the rules across its 401(k)" or
individual retirement account platform, Ms. Roper said.

Ms. Roper highlighted the importance of the class action
provision.

Without that provision, "you greatly reduce the incentive for
compliance, particularly when the Administration appears to be far
from enthusiastic about providing direct enforcement."

And if the DOL did underestimate the costs for the very largest
firms? "Assume Morningstar is correct, that is not enough to scare
large firms into walking away from advising the trillions in
retirement accounts," Ms. Roper said.  "On the other hand, it may
be enough to incentivize them to take compliance seriously."

Morningstar also said the financial industry is unlikely to walk
away from working with retirement investors.

"Some financial industry participants have argued that wealth
managers will just step away from serving retirement investors
because of the impact from the Department of Labor fiduciary
rule," Morningstar said in a report.  "We don't think that's
possible. Total assets in private pension plans and IRAs totaled
nearly $16 trillion at the end of 2015, while IRA assets typically
constitute from 20% of client assets at wirehouses to 50% at
independent firms."


* Procedure Rule Changes Proposed in Class Action Litigation Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel reports that most of the proposed procedural rule
changes in Representative Bob Goodlatte's "Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2017," introduced in the House of
Representatives, are directly traceable to the business lobby's
anti-class-action talking points.  Mr. Goodlatte -- a Virginia
Republican and chair of the House Judiciary Committee - has
significantly expanded the changes he proposed last year in a
similarly named bill that was approved in the House but died in
the Senate.  If Congress adopts Goodlatte's bill in anything like
its current form, class actions and MDLs will be a shadow of what
we know today.

The bill would limit class certification to class actions in which
plaintiffs all "suffered the same type and scope of injury" and
would bar certification unless courts can ascertain class
membership and assure that only injured plaintiffs recover.  Class
action lawyers would not be able to sue on behalf of relatives and
employees -- or any other client with whom they have an ongoing
contractual or attorney-client relationship. Class certification
decisions would be automatically appealable. Attorneys' fees in
class actions resolved through injunctions would be limited to a
percentage of the "value of the equitable relief."

In MDLs, personal injury plaintiffs would have to submit evidence
of their injury within 45 days of their case being transferred to
the multidistrict proceeding or else risk dismissal.  Appellate
courts would have to consider appeals from any MDL order that
would "materially advance the ultimate termination" of any case in
the consolidated proceeding. Judges would have to assure that
plaintiffs receive 80 percent of their recovery, presumably
restricting their lawyers' fees contingency fees to 20 percent.

Ms. Frankel said "I write all the time about abuses in class
actions and MDLs, and I can certainly understand why defendants
want reforms -- and why various provisions of Goodlatte's bill
seem appealing.  The Judiciary chairman described his proposals as
a way 'to maximize recoveries by deserving victims and weed out
unmeritorious claims that would otherwise siphon resources away
from innocent parties.' Well, sure.  Who doesn't want more money
going to injury victims and less to their lawyers? Who cheers
consumer class action settlements in which few actual consumers
recover money? Who doesn't question whether Congress truly
intended to encourage serial claims by professional plaintiffs
when it enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and other
consumer laws with private rights of action?"

The Goodlatte bill, though, is both overly specific and
underdeveloped.  It would interfere with judges' ability to manage
complex litigation in all kinds of ways, from interfering with
decades of precedent on the range of injuries that can be resolved
in the same class action to requiring MDL courts to assess injury
evidence at the very beginning of complex cases. The proposal
would federalize contingency arrangements, which are private
contracts, and would remove from state bar associations the
regulation of relationships between plaintiffs' lawyers and their
clients.  It would also discourage all kinds of civil rights class
actions -- including, presumably, actions by gun-rights advocates
and religious groups -- by changing the rules for fees in
injunction-only cases.

The bill's provision to restrict class action lawyers from
representing repeat clients would severely disadvantage pension
funds and other institutional plaintiffs, said class action expert
Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University. (It
also seems to undermine the 1995 law governing securities class
actions, which encourages pension funds to act as lead
plaintiffs.) Sophisticated plaintiffs in complex securities and
antitrust litigation need specialized lawyers, just like
defendants in the same cases, Mr. Issacharoff said.  Why should a
corporation be allowed to have an ongoing relationship with
outside counsel but not a pension fund acting as a lead plaintiff?
"That is a significant disruption of the attorney-client
relationship," said Mr. Issacharoff.

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee have already begun to
push back against the bill, contacting class and mass litigation
scholars for their analysis of Mr. Goodlatte's suggestions. At
least two leading class action law profs -- Myriam Gilles of
Cardozo and Elizabeth Burch of the University of Georgia -- have
submitted comments.  Ms. Gilles, who described the proposed
legislation in an email as a "partisan, kill-all-class-actions
bill," focused her submission to the Judiciary Committee Democrats
on the vast body of class action precedent, including Supreme
Court cases, that guides judges on predominance and
ascertainability.  She also raised her concerns about the future
of issues cases.  Burch's 8-page letter points out that the
judiciary is already addressing many of the issues the Goodlatte
bill raises, through case management and proposed changes to the
class action rules by judiciary's advisory committee on civil
rules.

Ms. Frankel said "I encourage class action and MDL lawyers on both
sides of the v. to read the Burch and Gilles letters and submit
your own comments to the House as the Goodlatte bill moves
forward.  In particular, defense counsel may want Congress to know
why class actions and MDLs can be an effective means to resolve
serious litigation that might otherwise swamp your clients."

"In the meantime, I do want to highlight an intriguing idea in the
Goodlatte bill that I haven't seen anyone previously suggest. The
bill calls for class counsel to submit an accounting of class
action payouts to the Federal Judicial Center and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  The accounting would
include all sorts of data: the total paid to class members, the
number of class members who received payments, median and average
recoveries, largest and smallest recoveries and all payments to
anyone outside of the class, including class counsel.  The bill
would require the Judicial Center to compile the data and report
it annually to Congress."

"Right now, as you know, there is no comprehensive compilation of
data on class action and MDL claims and recoveries.  The data
exists, at least for class actions, but is to date closely guarded
by the small and secretive claims administration industry.  Last
fall, the Federal Trade Commission ordered eight claims
administrators to report on class action response rates, but the
Goodlatte bill would require the disclosure of vastly more
information."

With caveats, I think that's a good thing. As Georgia professor
Burch noted in her comments to the House Judiciary Committee, data
can "easily be skewed through methodology."  She also said the
bill's data collection provision, as drafted, "appears to be less
concerned about delivering the necessary data to judges and more
concerned with holding up plaintiffs' attorneys' funds in
administration so as to prevent them from investing in new
lawsuits."  NYU prof Issacharoff said Congress needs to provide
funds to the Judicial Center to administer the data collection and
compilation.

But both professors agree with me that discussion of the merits of
class actions and MDLs would be enormously informed by actual
numbers -- especially if they are collected and compiled by a
neutral body like the Judicial Center.  Mr. Issacharoff said the
lack of data is "a real problem."  His prediction is that the
numbers will show critics how effective mass litigation can be.
"You will see that MDLs and class actions by and large are very
good at delivering returns to those who have been injured --
certainly better than the FTC" and other government agencies, he
said.

If Mr. Issacharoff is wrong and the data shows class actions and
MDLs disproportionately benefit the lawyers who prosecute them,
class action detractors will have much stronger arguments for
changing the rules.

Either way, both sides will have an opportunity to debate based
not on the occasional abuses the Goodlatte bill seems to have been
written to address but on a comprehensive and systematic
evaluation of the effectiveness of these procedural devices.  If
Congress is going to change the rules, it ought to have a good
reason to do it.


* Securities Class Action Filing Activity Surpasses Prior Years
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin of Cornerstone Research provides a review
on securities class action filings in 2016.

NUMBER AND SIZE OF FILINGS

By several measures, securities class action filing activity
surpassed all previous years, including 2008.

Plaintiffs filed a record 270 new federal class action securities
cases (filings) in 2016.  This was 44 percent greater than both
2015 filings and the historical average of 188 filings observed
between 1997 and 2015.

Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) edged up to $107 billion in 2016, 2
percent above 2015 DDL, but 11 percent below the historical
average of $120 billion.

For the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, Maximum Dollar
Loss (MDL) exceeded the historical average. MDL was $823 billion
in 2016, 38 percent above the historical average, and more than
double 2015 MDL.

In 2016, five mega filings made up 31 percent of DDL and 22 mega
filings made up 66 percent of MDL.  While the number of mega DDL
filings was in line with the historical average, mega DDL as a
percentage of total DDL was well below the historical average of
54 percent.  The number of mega MDL filings was well above the
historical average, but mega MDL as a percentage of total MDL was
below the historical average of 71 percent. Filings with a DDL of
at least $5 billion or an MDL of at least $10 billion are
considered mega filings.

OTHER MEASURES OF LITIGATION INTENSITY
A record 3.9 percent of U.S. exchange-listed companies were
subject to "traditional" class action filings in 2016.  This was
above the historical average of 2.8 percent.

More cases were filed against S&P 500 firms in 2016 than in any of
the previous seven years, with a large spike for companies in the
Health Care sector.

KEY TRENDS
A substantial increase in federal M&A filings drove the overall
jump in filing activity.

Federal filings of class actions involving merger and acquisition
(M&A) transactions increased to 80, more than four times greater
than in 2015.

The 2016 median filing lag of seven days was the shortest on
record. Between 1997 and 2015, the average median filing lag was
23 days.

The number of filings against foreign issuers increased from 2015
levels despite very few filings against Chinese issuers,
previously the most frequently targeted foreign firms.

Filings targeting European issuers increased to their highest
level since case tracking began in 1997.

Filings against companies in the Financial sector doubled to 34 in
2016 after dropping to 17 in 2015.

The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the most filings with
109, more than double the historical average of 47 filings.  The
increase was driven in part by filings against pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and healthcare companies.

There were 86 filings in the Ninth Circuit and 64 filings in the
Second Circuit. Filings in these circuits made up 56 percent of
all filings in 2016.

M&A FILINGS BY CIRCUIT

The wave of federal M&A filings in 2016 may be the result of the
venue shifting effect of Trulia.

Federal M&A objection filings (M&A filings) more than quadrupled
to 80 filings in 2016 and were most common in the Ninth and Third
Circuits, with 24 and 11 filings, respectively.

Federal M&A filings quintupled in the Third and Ninth Circuits in
2016 compared to 2015. The Third and Ninth Circuits accounted for
44 percent of all M&A filings in 2016.

The Delaware Court of Chancery's rejection of a disclosure-only
settlement in Trulia in January 2016 may have resulted in shifting
of merger objection lawsuits from state to federal venues.

STATUS OF M&A FILINGS
M&A filings had a higher dismissal rate than other filings from
2009 to 2015. During this period, 78 percent of these M&A filings
were dismissed, compared to 47 percent of other federal filings.

PHARMACEUTICAL, BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND HEALTHCARE SUBSECTORS
The number of filings in the Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and
Healthcare subsectors increased for the fifth consecutive year and
was more than double the 1997-2015 historical average. These
filings continue to make up an increasingly large percentage of
MDL.

CALIFORNIA STATE COURT SECTION 11 CASES
California state Section 11 filings have become more frequent in
the last two years.

Class actions with Section 11 claims have been increasingly filed
in California state courts in the last few years (California state
Section 11 filings).  Some of these filings have parallel actions
in federal courts, but most do not.  These California state
Section 11 filings do not include claims related to Rule 10b-5,
but may include Section 12 or Section 15 claims.

Between 2010 and 2016, plaintiffs filed 48 Section 11 cases in
California state courts.

In 2016, California state Section 11 filings were greater than in
any of the previous six years.  These filings were primarily
concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The MDL of California state Section 11 filings was higher in 2015
and 2016 than in any previous years.

A larger percentage of California state Section 11 filings are
ongoing relative to comparable federal filings (i.e., filings with
Section 11 claims, but no Rule 10b-5 claims), primarily due to a
lower dismissal rate for state filings.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Wins Summary Judgment in "Macqueen"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In MARGUERITE MACQUEEN, Individually and as the Surviving Spouse
of DAVID MACQUEEN, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-831-SLR-CJB
Consolidated (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
recommended that Warren Pumps LLC's motion for summary judgment be
granted and that Crane Co.'s and Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation's motions be granted in part and denied in part.

Crane and Buffalo's Motions are granted-in-part and denied-in-
part, and all counts/claims against them are dismissed, except as
to Count VII of Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint.  Count VII
alleges that the remaining Defendants (and, actually, all then-
named Defendants) conspired with Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company in order to suppress and misrepresent the hazards of
exposure to asbestos.

The magistrate noted that the Court does not have a sufficient
basis before it to recommend dismissal of Count VII as to Crane
and Buffalo.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated February
8, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/KIA0XV from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. BorgWarner Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
In NOLAN LEGEAUX ET AL., SECTION I, v. BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, ET
AL., Civil Action No. 16-13773 (E.D. La.), Judge Lance M. Africk
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons dated February 8, 2017,
granting  a motion for partial dismissal and for all of the
plaintiffs' claims against BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC for pre-death
loss of consortium, market share liability, enterprise liability,
concert of action, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees to be
dismissed with prejudice.  A full-text copy of the decision is
available at https://is.gd/Bp8VsL from Leagle.com.

Nolan Legeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Alex S. Dunn, Jr., Gori,
Julian & Associates, P.C.

Nolan Legeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Scott Dillahunty,
Ferrell Law Group, pro hac vice.

Susan Legeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Alex S. Dunn, Jr., Gori,
Julian & Associates, P.C. & Matthew Scott Dillahunty, Ferrell Law
Group, pro hac vice.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.

CertainTeed Corporation Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur
Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP,
Jennifer E. Adams, 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., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

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

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann
McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

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

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP, Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick
Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

Vigor Industrial LLC, Defendant, represented by Scott C. Seiler,
Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B.
Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis & Tiffany L.
Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

Vigor Shipyards, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott C. Seiler,
Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B.
Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis & Tiffany L.
Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Massenburg, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Bradley Adam Hays, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor
Manning LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Meaghan M.
Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Meghan B. Senter, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace,
III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP, Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP
& Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C.
Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP, Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick
Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP, Michelle A. Beaty, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick
Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Bradley Adam
Hays, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,
Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Meaghan M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Meghan B.
Senter, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro,
Frilot L.L.C..

CertainTeed Corporation Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois
Ormsby, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan
LLP, Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy
Harrison, Jr., Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Daniel Rolando
Estrada, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & James Matthew
Matherne, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R.
Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

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

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by Lauren
Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow &
Lewis, Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow &
Lewis & Tiffany L. Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

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

Vigor Industrial LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott C.
Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

Vigor Shipyards, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Scott C.
Seiler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Patrick B. Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Philip Dore, Liskow & Lewis &
Tiffany L. Delery, Liskow & Lewis.

BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Bradley Adam
Hays, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,
Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, Kevin R. Sloan, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP, Meaghan M. Donovan, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Meghan B.
Senter, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr., of the Supreme Court of Delaware
affirmed the Superior Court's orders granting summary judgment in
favor of five remaining defendants in the take-home asbestos
exposure action styled IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to WAYNE
R. REED, INDIVIDUALLY and AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA
REED, DECEASED, and AMY RHODES and COURTNEY REED, AS SURVIVING
CHILDREN, Plaintiffs Below Appellants, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CHARLES A. WAGNER CO., INC.,
NOSROC CORPORATION, and COUNTY INSULATION COMPANY, Defendants
Below, Appellees, No. 387, 2016 (Del. Sup.).

As to Nosroc Corporation, County Insulation Company, Asbestos
Corporation Limited, and Charles Wagner Company, Inc., the Chief
Justice said although the Superior Court relied in part on an
issue that those defendants did not fairly put in contest --
whether there was evidence of friability -- the plaintiffs did not
produce evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer, without
speculation, that Barbara Reed's father and former husband were in
specific proximity to the products at issue at the time they were
being used.  Thus, the Superior Court was correct to grant summary
judgment.

The final defendant, Bayer Cropscience, Inc., properly raised the
issue of friability, according to the Chief Justice.  The
plaintiffs failed to produce evidence from which a jury could
reasonably infer, without speculation, that Barbara Reed's father
was in specific proximity to the products distributed by Bayer at
a time when they were friable, and thus, the Superior Court's
ruling was proper.

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 6, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/4acGlU from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Herty Wins Summary Judgment in Widow's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Ramsey, through her estate, alleges that Georgia Southern
University Advanced Development Center negligently failed to warn
her of the risks of take-home exposure to its asbestos paper
product used at her husband's workplace from 1976-1980.  She
argues that Herty owed her a duty to warn because it was
foreseeable that her husband would transport home asbestos debris
that adhered to his uniform and unwittingly expose the Plaintiff
to this debris when she laundered his clothes.  She alleges that
Herty's failure to warn her of this risk was the proximate cause
of her lung cancer.

Herty moves for summary judgment and argues that it did not owe
the Plaintiff a duty of care.  The Defendant manufacturer argues
that the Plaintiff's allegations are claims of nonfeasance and
require the Plaintiff to identify a "special relationship" before
liability may attach to its alleged failure to act.  Further,
Herty argues that the Plaintiff cannot identify a "special
relationship" and no such special relationship exists.
Conversely, the Plaintiff characterizes her claims as affirmative
acts of negligent conduct, i.e., misfeasance.  As such, she argues
against dismissal and contends that Herty owed her a duty of care
to warn her of the risks of take-home asbestos exposure because it
knew or should have known that its product would adhere to the
clothes of employees and expose household members.

The central issue in this Motion is whether Price v. E.I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co. and Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc. apply to the
facts of this case.  Both Price and Riedel dealt with claims of
negligence asserted against the employer of the plaintiff's
spouse.  Herty contends that both cases are applicable to a
spouse's claim of take-home asbestos exposure against a
manufacturer who supplies an asbestos product to the employer of
the plaintiff's spouse.  The Plaintiff argues that both cases are
inapt because Herty was not the Plaintiff's husband's employer.

Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware finds
that this case fits within the legal parameters and rationale of
Price and Riedel.  Consistent with both cases, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff alleges claims of nonfeasance.  Thus, Herty
does not owe the Plaintiff a general duty of care.  Further, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff has not identified any evidence of
a special relationship between herself and Herty.  Therefore,
Herty has met its burden of proving that no duty of care exists
and Herty's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

The case is N RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ELIZABETH
RAMSEY, Administrator of the Estate of DOROTHY RAMSEY, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. ATLAS TURNER LTD., et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N14C-01-287 ASB (Del. Sup.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion
dated February 2, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/JBzpvT from
Leagle.com.

Thomas Crumplar, Esquire, and Raeann Warner, Esquire, of Jacobs &
Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Plaintiff
Elizabeth Ramsey.

Eileen M. Ford, Esquire, and Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esquire, of
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., of Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant Georgia Southern University
Advanced Development Center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Allowed to File Bid to Substitute
--------------------------------------------------------
In WILLIAM D. COLEMAN, v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL., Civil
Action No. 15-821-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Erin
Wilder-Doomes of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana issued an order dated February 10, 2017,
directing Pamela Coleman and Jody Coleman Nolte to file a motion
to substitute the proposed pleading with a proposed pleading that
properly sets forth the citizenship of the parties.

The Movants filed a Motion to Substitute and Amended and sought to
be substituted in William Coleman's stead as plaintiffs and to
"formally allege causes of action sounding in survival and
wrongful death."  The Movants assert that William D. Coleman, the
named plaintiff in the suit, died from malignant mesothelioma on
November 8, 2016, and that the Movants are Mr. Coleman's statutory
heirs and the proper persons to pursue survival and wrongful death
claims.

According to the magistrate, the Fifth Circuit has explained that,
"[f]or diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile; mere
residence in the State is not sufficient."  The Movants'
allegation that the defendants are "all foreign corporations" is
insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction, the magistrate
held.

The magistrate further ordered the Movants to state in their
motion to substitute whether the defendants consent to the filing
of the First Supplemental and Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/WFagdM
from Leagle.com.

William D. Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester-
Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Susan
M. Rogge, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC, H. Minor
Pipes, III, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC &
Kimberly R. Silas, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver,
L.L.C..

Safety National Casualty Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chris James LeBlanc, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP &
William Eugene Scott, III, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard &
Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Pilkington North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Culp, Rasmussen Willis Dickey Moore, pro hac vice, Matthew S.
Jensen, Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, pro hac vice & Jane
H. Barney, J.H. Barney Law Firm, LLC.

Bedivere Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel M.
Rosamond, III, Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam D. deMahy
& Angela Jacketti O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Susannah Chester-Schindler, Attorney for Plaintiff not admitted to
LAMD, Notice Only, Pro Se.

Susannah Chester-Schindler, Notice Only, represented by Susannah
B. Chester-Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Motion in DeLisle v. Crane Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by plaintiffs for a rehearing and/or appeal of a ruling
in an asbestos suit filed by Richard DeLisle remains pending,
according to the Company's results of operations for the quarter
ended December 31, 2016 disclosed in an 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2017.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.
Oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16, 2016. On
September 14, 2016 a panel of the Florida Court of Appeals
reversed and entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff
filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing and/or
certification of an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which the
Court denied on November 9, 2016. Plaintiffs have subsequently
requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida. That motion
remains pending.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Seeks Review of Ruling in "Sweberg"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is asking the New York Court of Appeals to review a
ruling denying a rehearing of liability issues in an asbestos suit
filed by Ivan Sweberg and Selwyn Hackshaw, according to the
Company's results of operations for the quarter ended December 31,
2016 disclosed in an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 30, 2017.

On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied,
except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million,
and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments have been
entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million
in Hackshaw. The Company appealed. Oral argument on Sweberg took
place on February 16, 2016, and oral argument on Hackshaw took
place on March 9, 2016. On October 6, 2016, two panels of the
Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of the
trial court on liability issues but further reduced the Sweberg
damages award to $9.5 million and further reduced the Hackshaw
damages award to $3 million, which after settlement offsets are
calculated to be $4.73 million in Sweberg and $0 in Hackshaw.
Plaintiffs have the option of accepting the reduced awards or
having new trials on damages. The Company filed a motion with the
Appellate Division requesting a rehearing on liability issues in
Sweberg. That motion was denied. The Company is seeking review
before the New York Court of Appeals.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument Held in Crane's Appeal in "Poage"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument was held in an appeal by Crane Co. against a $10.8
million judgement in an asbestos suit filed by James Poage,
according to the Company's results of operations for the quarter
ended December 31, 2016 disclosed in an 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2017.

On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state court jury in the
James Poage claim entered a $1.5 million verdict for compensatory
damages against the Company. The jury also awarded exemplary
damages against the Company in the amount of $10 million. The
Company filed a motion seeking to reduce the verdict to account
for the verdict set-offs. That motion was denied, and judgment was
entered against the Company in the amount of $10.8 million. The
Company is pursuing an appeal. Oral argument was held on December
13, 2016.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeals $0.4MM Award in "Rabovsky"
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals against a $0.4 million judgment in an asbestos suit filed
by Valent Rabovsky, according to the Company's results of
operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2016 disclosed in an
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2017.

On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, federal court
jury found the Company responsible for a 30 percent share of a
$1.085 million verdict in the Valent Rabovsky claim. The court
ordered briefing on the amount of the judgment. The Company
argued, among other things, that settlement offsets reduce the
award to plaintiff under Pennsylvania law. A further hearing was
held April 26, 2016, after which the court denied the Company's
request and entered judgment in the amount of $0.4 million. The
Company filed post-trial motions, which were denied in two
decisions issued on August 26, 2016 and September 28, 2016. The
Company is pursuing an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeals $6.8MM Award in "Coulbourn"
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals against a $6.8 million judgment in an asbestos suit filed
by George Coulbourn, according to the Company's results of
operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2016 disclosed in an
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2017.

On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona federal court jury found the
Company responsible for a 20 percent share of a $9 million verdict
in the George Coulbourn claim, and further awarded exemplary
damages against the Company in the amount of $5 million.  The jury
also awarded compensatory and exemplary damages against the other
defendant present at trial.  The court entered judgment against
the Company in the amount of $6.8 million. The Company filed post-
trial motions, which were denied on September 20, 2016. The
Company is pursuing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $73.5MM for Settlement, Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. incurred $73.5 million gross settlement and defense
costs for asbestos matters for the years ended December 31, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 30, 2017.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 totaled $73.5 million, $69.4
million and $81.1 million. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December
31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 totaled $56.0 million, $49.9 million and
$61.3 million, respectively. For the comparable amounts for the
periods indicated, see: https://is.gd/e9qw43

The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and
cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.
Cumulatively through December 31, 2016, the Company has resolved
(by settlement or dismissal) approximately 124,000 claims. The
related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance
carriers is approximately $483 million, for an average settlement
cost per resolved claim of approximately $3,900. The average
settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December
31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $3,900, $3,100 and $3,800,
respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large
groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number
of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period.
In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease
and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will
also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement
cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim
is not considered in the Company's periodic review of its
estimated asbestos liability.

Effects on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based on the Company's recent
historical experience for claims filed, settled and dismissed
during a base reference period. The Company's experience is then
compared to estimates of the number of individuals likely to
develop asbestos-related diseases determined based on widely used
previously conducted epidemiological studies augmented with
current data inputs. Those studies were undertaken in connection
with national analyses of the population of workers believed to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A
estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against
the Company and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity
costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future
claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during
the reference period. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts. After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments
its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims
in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is
based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this
information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos
liability for pending and future claims using a range of reference
periods based on claim experience and covering claims expected to
be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most
significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the
number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2)
the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the
percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company
and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These
factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected by the
substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy
protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until
the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a
number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which
have been estimated to provide $36 billion for payments to current
and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive and
negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the
tort system and the related best estimate of the Company's
asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear
fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly,
the Company's management continues to monitor these trend factors
over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative
forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed as well as
average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung
cancer, other cancer, and non-malignant conditions including
asbestosis). In addition to this claims experience, the Company
also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant
appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their
respective effects on expected future settlement values. As part
of this process, the Company also takes into account trends in the
tort system.  Management considers all these factors in
conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines
whether a change in the estimate is warranted.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $227MM Additional Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded an additional liability of $227 million as of
December 31, 2016 after extending its estimate of the asbestos
liability through 2059, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 30,
2017.

With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.
(HR&A), effective as of December 31, 2016, the Company extended
its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of
settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to
currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed
against the Company through the generally accepted end point of
such claims in 2059. The Company's previous estimate was for
asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2021.

The Company's estimate of the asbestos liability for pending and
future claims through 2059 is based on the projected future
asbestos costs resulting from the Company's experience using a
range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and
dismissed. Based on this estimate, the Company recorded an
additional liability of $227 million as of December 31, 2016. This
action was based on several factors which contribute to the
Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability through
2059.

First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although
constituting approximately 10% of the Company's total pending
asbestos claims, have consistently accounted for approximately 90%
of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being
filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have
stabilized. Second, there have been generally favorable
developments in the trend of case law which has been a
contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity
and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant
actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts that have
reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial,
which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity. Fourth, recent court decisions in certain
jurisdictions have provided additional clarity regarding the
nature of claims that may proceed to trial in those jurisdictions
and greater predictability regarding future claim activity.

Fifth, the Company has coverage-in-place agreements with almost
all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a
stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by
the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Sixth, annual
settlements with respect to groups of cases with certain plaintiff
firms have helped to stabilize indemnity payments and defense
costs. Taking these factors into account, the Company believes
that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending
claims and future claims to be filed through 2059.

A liability of $696 million was recorded as of December 31, 2016
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2059, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2059. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related
to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is
expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years
past 2059, due to the significant proportion of future claims
included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time
between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of
these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to
the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The
current portion of the total estimated liability at December 31,
2016 was $71 million and represents the Company's best estimate of
total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month
period ended December 31, 2017. Such amount is based upon the HR&A
model together with the Company's prior year payment experience
for both settlement and defense costs.

            Insurance Coverage and Receivables

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for
a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred.

To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for
such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of
its excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place
agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer
undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's present and
future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that
address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to
be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures
and the expiration of the insurer's obligations.

Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has
entered into an agreement with a group of insurers confirming the
aggregate amount of available coverage under the subject policies
and setting forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to
the Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments
made. In addition, with ten of its excess insurer groups, the
Company entered into agreements settling all asbestos and other
coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in
aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing
settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been
made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other
agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-
place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements, the
Company has concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent
excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the
aggregate costs included in the liability estimate. That insurer,
which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying the
shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to
it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no pending legal
proceedings between the Company and any insurer contesting the
Company's asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company.

Using the estimated liability as of December 31, 2016 (for claims
filed or expected to be filed through 2059), the insurance
consultant's model forecasted that approximately 21% of the
liability would be reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While
there are overall limits on the aggregate amount of insurance
available to the Company with respect to asbestos claims, those
overall limits were not reached by the total estimated liability
currently recorded by the Company, and such overall limits did not
influence the Company in its determination of the asset amount to
record. The proportion of the asbestos liability that is allocated
to certain insurance coverage years, however, exceeds the limits
of available insurance in those years. The Company allocates to
itself the amount of the asbestos liability (for claims filed or
expected to be filed through 2059) that is in excess of available
insurance coverage allocated to such years. An asset of $143
million was recorded as of December 31, 2016 representing the
probable insurance reimbursement for such claims expected through
2059. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments
from insurers are received.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under other insurer
agreements. Actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time.

Uncertainties. Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for
asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties,
as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing,
severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their
resolution. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is
based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and
defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable
as predictors; the assumptions are interdependent and no single
factor predominates in determining the liability estimate.

A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the
costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,
as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand
appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,
or significant change in relevant case law could also change the
estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented. Although the
resolution of these claims will likely take many years, the effect
on the results of operations, financial position and cash flow in
any given period from a revision to these estimates could be
material.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Fluid Handling,
Payment & Merchandising Technologies, Aerospace & Electronics, and
Engineered Materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Real Warns of Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. disclosed the following
asbestos-related matters at its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016:

   (i) "Some of our properties may have asbestos-containing
building materials. Environmental laws require that asbestos-
containing building materials be properly managed and maintained
and may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators
for failure to comply with these requirements. These laws may also
allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for
personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos-containing
building materials.

"In addition, some of our tenants routinely handle hazardous
substances and wastes as part of their operations at our
properties. Environmental laws and regulations subject our
tenants, and potentially us, to liability resulting from these
activities or from previous uses of those properties.

"Environmental liabilities could also affect a tenant's ability to
make rental payments to us. We require our tenants to comply with
these environmental laws and regulations.

"Independent environmental consultants have conducted Phase I or
similar environmental site assessments on the properties in our
portfolio. Site assessments are intended to discover and evaluate
information regarding the environmental condition of the surveyed
property and surrounding properties and do not generally include
soil samplings, subsurface investigations, or an asbestos survey.
To date, these assessments have not revealed any material
environmental liability that we believe would have a material
adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of operations.

"Nevertheless, it is possible that the assessments on our
properties have not revealed all environmental conditions,
liabilities, or compliance concerns that may have arisen after the
review was completed or may arise in the future; and future laws,
ordinances, or regulations may impose additional material
environmental liability."

   (ii) "Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance,
and removal of asbestos-containing materials. These laws may
impose fines and penalties on us for the release of asbestos-
containing materials and may allow third parties to seek recovery
from us for personal injury from exposure to asbestos fibers. We
have detected asbestos-containing materials at some of our
properties, but we do not expect that they will result in material
environmental costs or liabilities to us."

   (iii) "We may incur significant costs in complying with
environmental laws.

"Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations may
require us, as a current or prior owner or operator of real
estate, to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances
or petroleum products released at or from any of our properties.
The cost of investigating and cleaning up contamination could be
substantial and could exceed the amount of any insurance coverage
available to us. In addition, the presence of contamination, or
the failure to properly clean it up, may adversely affect our
ability to lease or sell an affected property, or to borrow funds
using that property as collateral.

"Under environmental laws and regulations, we may have to pay
government entities or third parties for property damage and for
investigation and cleanup costs incurred by those parties relating
to contaminated properties regardless of whether we knew of or
caused the contamination. Even if more than one party was
responsible for the contamination, we may be held responsible for
all of the cleanup costs. In addition, third parties may sue us
for damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination,
or jointly responsible parties may contest their responsibility or
be financially unable to pay their share of such costs.

"Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance, and
removal of asbestos-containing materials. These laws may impose
fines and penalties on us for the release of asbestos-containing
materials and may allow third parties to seek recovery from us for
personal injury from exposure to asbestos fibers. We have detected
asbestos-containing materials at some of our properties, but we do
not expect that they will result in material environmental costs
or liabilities to us.

"Environmental laws and regulations also require the removal or
upgrading of certain underground storage tanks and regulate:

-- The discharge of stormwater, wastewater, and any water
pollutants;

-- The emission of air pollutants;

-- The generation, management, and disposal of hazardous or toxic
chemicals, substances, or wastes; and

-- Workplace health and safety.

"Many of our tenants routinely handle hazardous substances and
wastes as part of their operations at our properties.
Environmental laws and regulations subject our tenants, and
potentially us, to liability resulting from these activities.
Environmental liabilities could also affect a tenant's ability to
make rental payments to us. We require our tenants to comply with
these environmental laws and regulations and to indemnify us
against any related liabilities.

"Independent environmental consultants have conducted Phase I or
similar environmental assessments at our properties. We intend to
use consultants to conduct similar environmental assessments on
our future acquisitions. This type of assessment generally
includes a site inspection, interviews, and a public records
review, but no subsurface sampling. These assessments and certain
additional investigations of our properties have not to date
revealed any environmental liability that we believe would have a
material adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of
operations.

"Additional investigations have included, as appropriate:

-- Asbestos surveys;

-- Radon surveys;

-- Lead surveys;

-- Mold surveys;

-- Additional public records review;

-- Subsurface sampling; and

-- Other testing.

"Nevertheless, it is possible that the assessments on our current
properties have not revealed, and that assessments on future
acquisitions will not reveal, all environmental liabilities.
Consequently, there may be material environmental liabilities of
which we are unaware that may result in substantial costs to us or
our tenants and that could have a material adverse effect on our
business.

   (iv) "Some of our properties may contain asbestos, which, under
certain conditions, requires remediation. Although we believe that
the asbestos is appropriately contained in accordance with
environmental regulations, our practice is to remediate the
asbestos upon the development or redevelopment of the affected
property. We recognize a liability for the fair value of a
conditional asset retirement obligation (including asbestos) when
the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. In
addition, for certain properties, we have not recognized an asset
retirement obligation when there is an indeterminate settlement
date for the obligation because the period in which we may
remediate the obligation may not be estimated with any level of
precision to provide for a meaningful estimate of the retirement
obligation."

Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. -- http://www.are.com/-- is
engaged in the business of providing office/laboratory and
technology office space for lease to the science and technology
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Claims Asbestos Caused Death of Loved One
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a
Lafayette Parish family is seeking damages following the death of
a loved one.

Linda Patin, individually and on behalf of her mother Pearl Benoit
Hebert, as well as Chester Hebert Jr., Sharon Buteau, Pasty Depue
and Peggy Hebert, individually and on behalf of their deceased
husband and father Chester M. Hebert Sr., filed a lawsuit Jan. 13
against Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et. al in Orleans Parish
Civil District Court alleging asbestos related damages.

According to the complaint, Chester Hebert was employed by the
U.S. Navy from 1944-1946. The suit states that during his
employment, he was exposed to certain asbestos-containing
products. Due to his exposure, he died on Jan. 22, 2016.

The defendant is accused of negligence, liability and fault in the
death of Chester Hebert, failing to take the proper safety
precautions and overall negligence in their treatment of the
situation.

The plaintiffs seek all reasonable damages, court costs, attorney
fees and all appropriate relief. They are represented by attorney
Susannah Chester-Schindler of Waters & Kraus LLP in Dallas.

The case has been assigned to Division J Judge Paula A. Brown.

Orleans Parish Civil District Court Case number 17-410.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refusal to Unseal Deposition a Travesty
--------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that a district
judge's refusal to unseal testimony given by renowned plaintiff's
attorney Russell Budd on the "Terrell memo" was a "travesty," says
the lawyer who filed the motion to unseal.

Late last year, Christine Biederman, a Dallas lawyer and freelance
journalist working on behalf of a documentary filmmaker,
intervened in a 24-year old asbestos suit filed in Travis County,
seeking to unearth the deposition of Budd, the current president
of Baron & Budd -- a Dallas-based law firm specializing in toxic
torts.

While the case in question was dismissed a decade ago, and Budd's
deposition on the Terrell memo was offered 10 years prior to that,
Biederman and her client Paul Johnson Films suspect the testimony
has relevancy to ongoing asbestos litigation and could play a role
in Johnson's upcoming documentary dubbed "UnSettled," a film
developed to cast light on the business of asbestos lawsuits.

The Terrell memo, considered by some to be a "cheat sheet,"
purportedly reveals how Baron & Budd attorneys coached up 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.

On Jan. 31, Judge Orlinda Naranjo, 419th District Court, ruled the
court did not have jurisdiction over the case, brushing off
Biederman's motion to unseal following a 35-minute hearing.

When asked if the judge made the right call, Biederman answered:
"Absolutely not."

"It's a travesty whenever court records are not open and available
to the public -- it's America 101 that our courts should be open,"
Biederman told the Record. "When you file a case in a publicly
funded system, the presumption should always be the public has a
right to know.

"Secrecy is the enemy of justice."

Perhaps ironically, Judge Naranjo sided with Baron & Budd's
counsel and found the filmmaker's request to film the hearing
untimely, as the motion to record was made the day of. However,
the judge had no issue allowing Baron & Budd's rather lengthy
response, which was filed the day before, despite Biederman's
objections to its timeliness.

"What can I say? I got a little bit hometowned," Biederman said.

Arguably blindsided, Biederman was served with the response only
hours before the hearing, a reply several hundred pages long and
at least "a couple of inches thick," she says.

"I was a little surprised," Biederman said. "Let's just say they
(Baron & Budd) spent a lot of money to try and keep that
deposition under wraps."

The architects of the response were Austin attorneys Charles
Herring and Jason Panzer, malpractice lawyers who have counseled
some of Texas' most high-profile attorneys, including Steve Mostyn
at a sanctions hearing against him last May.

Strangely enough, when Biederman first served Baron & Budd with
her motion back in November, she didn't receive any reaction at
all, saying the firm only took notice once she set the matter for
hearing.

"The acted like they didn't care at first," she said.

More perplexing, is the fact that most of the case files in the
asbestos suit had been disposed of without the courthouse creating
digital backups, a development that forced Biederman to piece
events together from a patchwork docket.

Biederman, a former U.S. assistant attorney, says she was
"shocked" when she found out.

"I have never heard of anything like this in any other county in
Texas," she said. "I think that someone clearly screwed up."

During the hearing, Budd's counsel cited a Travis County statute
that allowed all the case files to be destroyed.

Biederman's employers are currently weighing the option of an
appeal.

They believe Budd's deposition could even be relevant to the 2014
Garlock Sealing Technologies case, which exposed attorney "double-
dipping" in bankruptcy asbestos trusts.

As of Feb. 6, Judge Naranjo has not responded to a request for
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Asbestos Trial Expected by Month's End
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Sanchez, writing for Sonoma State Star, reported that the
trial in a $15 million whistleblower lawsuit, involving the
discovery of asbestos in some Sonoma State buildings, began in
January and is expected to last until the end of February.

"The health and safety of the employees and students at SSU are at
stake in this case," said Dustin Collier,  attorney for the
plaintiff Thomas Sargent.

Sargent was a former Sonoma State employee and asbestos
consultant.

Sargent accuses Sonoma State of mishandling contamination of
asbestos and lead in multiple campus buildings. He also claims he
suffered retaliation from the university when he exposed the
problem.

Sargent is seeking $15 million in damages.

The trial, which is taking place in the Sonoma County Superior
Courthouse in Santa Rosa, had its most recent hearing this past
Wednesday, Feb. 2. Sargent testified in front of the seven-man,
five-women jury and continued upholding the allegations that have
rooted this trial.

Among them are the mishandling of asbestos by his supervisor,
Director of Energy and Environmental Health and Safety Craig
Dawson, and the way he was treated after notifying the California
Department of Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Branch, Cal-OSHA and Sonoma Department of Emergency Services, of
the potential threat to the health of employees and students.

The university has admitted to the presence of asbestos in
Stevenson Hall; however, officials point to official reports found
by private company, RHP Risk Management, which shows levels of the
toxic material do not exceed unsafe standards imposed by Cal-OSHA.

On Wednesday, Sargent claimed the testing used by the university
was inadequate because they are testing the levels of asbestos in
the air during a time in which asbestos sources are undisturbed.

According to Sargent, in order to truly know if asbestos is
present in the air, testing must be completed during a time in
which asbestos sources are being disturbed.

Nicolas Grizzle, a Sonoma State's spokesman, declined to comment
on this matter.

While on the stand, Sargent also answered questions from his
lawyer indicating the deterioration of his work relationship with
Dawson. Sargent claims he received his lowest ratings ever in
areas such as quality of work, initiative, communication and
customer service after his denouncement of the asbestos incident.
This retaliation led Sargent to resign "in protest," said his
lawyer Dustin Collier.

So far top officials such as former Sonoma State University
President Ruben Armi§ana and former Vice President of
Administration and Finance,Laurence Furukawa-Schlereth have taken
the stand during the trial.

"What's at stake in this trial is whether or not the university
has done enough to asses the asbestos problem, and to hold them
accountable to take the problem more seriously," said Collier. "As
well as bringing some justice to Sargent and restore him into
society."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Central Valley Students Sue School
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a judge has cleared the way for
dozens of former Central Valley students to take their school
district to trial over fears that a job-training program exposed
them to cancer.

Attorney Allen Sawyer said Monday he represents 61 former students
of the Merced County Office of Education. He alleges that a decade
ago, they renovated asbestos-laden buildings at an old military
base without proper protection.

In a separate case, three men who ran the program through a
nonprofit were found guilty and sent to prison.

Sawyer says the district now owes the former students lifelong
coverage for preventative health checkups and payments for the
fear they might contract cancer.

An attorney for the county office of education, Leonard Herr,
argues the students have access to health care provided through
workers' compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Asbestos in Housing Prompts Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
Felicity James, writing for ABC News, reported that Fears Tennant
Creek residents are being exposed to asbestos in demountable
housing have prompted the construction union to visit the remote
Northern Territory town and investigate.

Andrew Ramsay, a workplace safety officer with the CFMEU and
chairman of the Brisbane-based Asbestos Disease Support Society,
said demountables he suspected contained asbestos were spread
across the town.

"I've got a bag full of suspected asbestos debris and there is a
lot of other debris lying around," he said.

"The bag I've got, I reckon 80 per cent of it will be friable
asbestos-containing material."

NT WorkSafe has confirmed 11 demountables imported from China,
purchased by the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation for use
in Tennant Creek about six years ago, have tested positive for
asbestos.

Several residents told the ABC their concerns that more than a
dozen children were exposed to asbestos about three years ago were
being ignored.

Indigenous community leader Linda Turner, known locally as LT,
said a vandalised demountable was left idle for children to play
with and families urgently wanted answers.

"My sister's grandchildren, my grandchildren have been playing in
that," she said.

Risk not being managed: Ramsay

Mr Ramsay said it was clear from his inspection that debris from
the demountables had not been cleaned up properly.

"Obviously all the precautions under the code haven't been
followed," he said.

"I shouldn't be able to walk around and pick up debris."

Attempts to fence off some of the demountables did not comply with
required standards, according to CFMEU NT/QLD organiser Rolly
Cummins, who also visited the town.

"They haven't got locks on them or anything, you can just push the
gates open and anyone can go in."

The asbestos problem in Tennant Creek is a story repeated in other
remote communities, Mr Cummins said.

"It's across the whole Northern Territory."

"I've been out to Docker River and Finke, Santa Teresa.

"I've seen asbestos throughout the communities, holes in the
walls, asbestos falling off, kids playing in it."
Mr Ramsay said he had also seen the problem elsewhere.

"I saw some broken fibro sheeting at Santa Teresa community last
year around August," he said.

"The gable of the building was broken and it was lying around --
it was asbestos-containing material."

'Woeful story of asbestos coming into this country'

Independent senator Nick Xenophon pushed for the current Senate
inquiry into non-conforming building products, including illegally
imported asbestos.

The inquiry is due to report in May.

"The news coming out of Tennant Creek is yet another woeful story
of asbestos coming into this country, even though there's been an
absolute ban on asbestos products coming into Australia since
2003," he said.

"The fact that non-conforming, non-complying dangerous building
products and buildings are coming into Australia indicates that
Border Force and regulatory agencies haven't been doing their
job."

In a statement to the ABC, the Department of Immigration said it
was aware of the case in Tennant Creek and had taken "appropriate
action" to target all imports of these types of goods from the
various suppliers.

"The Australian Border Force has significantly increased its
strategic and operational focus on goods that pose a risk of
containing asbestos with emphasis placed on imports from China,"
the statement said.

"This has resulted in a substantial increase in the targeting and
testing of high-risk goods.

"So far in 2016/17 there has been 319 asbestos tests, with 10
consignments testing positive."

NT Worksafe told the ABC that Julalikari was engaging a licensed
business to help develop an asbestos management plan and asbestos
register.

Inspectors made an initial visit to the site in November last year
and would visit Tennant Creek again on Wednesday, according to the
statement.

"NT WorkSafe's role is to ensure that the Julalikari Council
Aboriginal Corporation complies with their obligations under the
Work Health and Safety legislation," the statement said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Counsel Moves for Mistrial in Madison County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that opening statements were hardly underway in a rare
Madison County asbestos trial when counsel for defendant Hennessy
Industries Inc. moved for a mistrial over the plaintiff's request
for $8.5 million in compensatory damages.

Towards the end of plaintiff attorney Tom Hart's opening
statements, defense counsel Jim Lowry of Dallas objected when Hart
asked the jury to award plaintiffs Stanley Urban Jr. and Janet
Urban $8.5 million in damages.

They briefly approached the bench, and Hart returned to his
opening statements. He rephrased by requesting a "substantial"
amount in damages.

Minutes later, the jury was released for a brief recess, and Lowry
moved for a mistrial.

"Counsel has been doing this for a long time," Lowry said. "He
knows full well that is totally inappropriate."

"I have no choice but to move for a mistrial," he added.

Hart responded that he didn't find the request so prejudicial to
warrant a mistrial.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied the motion at this time, but
provided Lowry the chance to submit supportive case law to be
reviewed at a later date.

The Urbans are from West Bloomfield Michigan. They filed their
complaint in March 2013 through the Shrader & Associates firm.
Their most recent amended complaint was filed on Jan. 24. Hennessy
is the only remaining defendant.

Stanley Urban alleges he was exposed to asbestos-containing
products while working at various auto dealerships in Michigan
from the 1960s to 1974. He also alleges asbestos exposure while
working at several schools as an auto technology teacher from
1975-present.

Urban alleges he was exposed to asbestos while using Hennessy's
brake grinders.

Urban also alleges asbestos exposure when his family remodeled
their home in the early 1960s while he was still living there.

Urban alleges secondary asbestos exposure from his father, who was
employed from the 1950s until 1971 repairing heavy machinery.

On Jan. 10, 2013, Urban was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a
result of his asbestos exposure.

According to its website, Hennessy is "one of the world's foremost
aftermarket manufacturers of wheel-service equipment."

Most Madison County asbestos cases settle before trial begins,
with approximately one case going to trial per year. Last year,
two asbestos trials settled after testimony began.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-437


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Faculty Offices in Miguel
------------------------------------------------------------
August Kissel and Megan Dreher, writing for The Quarangle,
reported that when a building ages it becomes necessary that
repairs are done in order to ensure that the building follows
certain health codes. Manhattan College is no exception.

Over winter break, faculty offices were renovated due to professor
request. As students were welcomed back to school for second
semester, asbestos was discovered to be present in some of those
offices in Miguel Hall.

Margaret Groarke, associate professor of the Government
Department, discussed this issue in an email statement.

"Faculty on the 4th floor were told late last semester that our
hallways would be renovated over the break. Thus we were unable to
access our offices from Dec. 19 until just recently. The walls
were painted, and the old carpet was replaced with new carpet. It
took a little longer than expected, but I'm very much looking
forward to seeing how nice it looks," said Groarke.

During and prior to the renovation, it was discovered that there
was asbestos under certain floor tiles.

Asbestos is an old form of insulation that is no longer used due
to the fact that it can cause medical complications. It was often
used with pipe insulation and floor tiles and was highly used in
the 1970's. Since then, it has been labeled as a health hazard and
has led to cases of mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis.

Vice President of Facilities, Andrew Ryan spoke of plans to clean
up the asbestos.

"When we are doing work that is going to involve one of those two
things (pipe insulation and floor tiles), we take a look, if it's
questionable we have a company come in to test. If it's negative
we can go about our business, if it's positive we have to abate
it," said Ryan.

The college found that the asbestos test was positive and they
took the proper precautions to remove the asbestos. This includes
enclosing the work area completely in a plastic tent that is held
under negative air pressure. By doing so, a vacuum pulls out the
contaminated air and sends it outside so that it does not return
into the space. The company also uses a monitor to watch the air
quality and ensure that the area becomes asbestos free.

One professor in particular had a closer encounter with the
asbestos.

Claudia Setzer, a Religious Studies professor, had her office
renovated which called for the discovery of a long standing water
leak. During the removal of floor tiles to fix the leak, a layer
of asbestos was found underneath the floorboards.

"This was just one of many cases where they are trying to protect
us from asbestos, which is part of every old building. In my case
it was quite deeply buried under one of the layers of the floor.
It wasn't as if I was breathing it in or anything," said Setzer.

Setzer's office is not ready for her to move back in. For now, she
is sharing an office with a colleague and is "expecting that it's
[the project] going to move along in the next few weeks."

According to Andrew Ryan, there has been no health issues related
to the asbestos so far.

Overall, renovations to the faculty offices have made for a nicer
atmosphere.

"Hopefully, it will make the 4th floor a pleasanter place to work,
and encourage more students to come visit their professors there!"
said Groarke.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cosatu Threatens Suit vs. De Lille Over Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petru Saal, writing for Times Live, reported that in an open
letter to Mayor Patricia De Lille and Cape Town City Manager
Achmat Ebrahim, Coosatu provincial secretary Tony Ehrenreich
claims that the City did not follow the correct procedure in
removing and dumping asbestos at Athlone Power Station.

"This asbestos that is present in the City of Cape Town's older
buildings has already poisoned and killed the workers at Athlone
power station," says Ehrenreich.

Ehrenreich says that the City refused to assist the Athlone Power
Station workers who are continually being exposed to asbestos.

"The procedures for working with asbestos are not complied with,
to the detriment of workers" says Eherenreich.

He claims that the City has incorrectly removed and handled the
asbestos as a cost saving measure and that the City and
construction companies are in fact in cahoots.

"This exposure of workers is just a result of the cost saving from
the side of the Council and the construction companies, to
properly process the asbestos. The interest of construction
company owners and savings to the Council is much more important
to De Lille than the lives of the poor black workers."

Ehrenrech says that Cosatu will be taking legal action should the
mayor not meet their demands by February 14.

"That she undertakes to send all persons affected by the non
compliance of procedure, to guard against exposure to asbestos for
tests. That the Mayor ensures treatment and compensation for all
those affected by asbestos; as a result of her neglect to follow
procedures. That the Mayor undertakes to comply with the demands .
. . failing which the class action will be launched."

The City of Cape Town, however, has refuted the claims made by
Cosatu, saying that anyone with information of procedures not
being followed in the removal and dumping of asbestos should come
forward.

"The City of Cape Town is deeply concerned that, if Cosatu does
indeed have information on breaches of asbestos demolition and
disposal regulations, they have not reported this directly to the
Department of Labour or the approved asbestos inspection
authority. This, rather than threats against the City, would be in
the best interests of the workers who have allegedly been
affected," says Mayoral Committee Member for Corporate Service,
Councillor Raelene Arendse.

The City also says that claims that asbestos is still lingering in
the air and water supply is incorrect.

"Some older water and sewerage reticulation systems still convey
water and sewerage in fibre cement pipe infrastructure that may
contain asbestos. Research conducted by the World Health
Organisation has, however, demonstrated that drinking water that
is conveyed in asbestos-containing fibre cement water pipes does
not pose a risk to the health of the end users," says Arendse.

The City has also implemented an asbestosis programme where former
and current workers of the Athlone Power Station are monitored and
screened yearly for their exposure to asbestos.

"The removal and disposal of the asbestos at the Athlone Power
Station was done in strict accordance with the asbestos
regulations by a certified asbestos removal and disposal company.
The work was carried out under the auspices of an approved
inspection authority which monitored the entire process. This
would equally apply to the removal of asbestosis material at any
City-owned building."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate Administrator Sues Manufacturers
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a special administrator of a deceased man's estate is suing
Aerco International Inc., Alfa Laval Inc., Armstrong International
Inc., et al., asbestos-containing product manufacturers, alleging
negligence.

Tommie Andrews, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Willie Andrews Jr., deceased, filed a complaint on Jan.
10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants,
alleging that they failed to exercise ordinary care and caution
for the safety of those working with products containing asbestos
fibers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during
decedent Willie Andrews Jr.'s life, he was exposed to and ingested
large amount of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he
was working with, which caused him to develop lung cancer, that
ultimately led to his death on Jan. 29, 2015. The plaintiff holds
the defendants responsible for allegedly failing to protect the
decedent from the dangers of asbestos.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
the defendants in an amount exceeding $50,000 which will fairly
compensate decedent's injuries. He is represented by Randi L. Gori
and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-10


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Woman's Losing Battle for Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Branco, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that nine
months after Christine May's husband was diagnosed with an
asbestos-caused cancer, he was dead.

One year later, she is $10,000 in debt with three mortgages and
reeling as her bid for compensation from WorkCover Queensland has
been knocked back again.

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision, published
last month, was the latest blow in what the 58-year-old
Queenslander described as the worst two years of her life.

Her lawyer argued there was an inconsistency in the law but the
commission disagreed, upholding an earlier finding that a $100,000
claim for compensation in New Zealand precluded her from claiming
in Queensland.

William "Kev" Cameron's death on January 4 last year, just as his
wife thought she saw a ray of hope, was shocking, devastating and
fast.

She took a holiday to Hawaii over Christmas last year while still
expecting compensation, which hurt her financially, but said she
couldn't bear being home.

Her husband finished chemotherapy for mesothelioma in August 2015
and was feeling good until one day the usually voracious eater
couldn't manage more than two bites of his lunch.

A tumour next to his oesophagus had grown from 12 millimetres to
50 in just two months.

Desperate for treatment, he accepted radiography treatment as the
couple sought out respected oncologist and mesothelioma specialist
Dr Keith Horwood.

They flew from Innisfail, where the 74-year-old was building their
home, to Brisbane to spend Christmas with friends in Paddington.

A few days before, they met with Dr Horwood, who proposed a
promising new treatment but noted Mr Cameron was too weak from the
radiotherapy and would have to return later, Mrs May said.

Things were looking promising. Then at Christmas lunch, "Kev"
couldn't eat or drink.

By Boxing Day he had "taken a turn for the worse" and his wife
rushed him to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.

The cancer had spread to the big man's liver and brain and he was
moved to palliative care to die.

"It was so quick, from Christmas Day when we had all hopes of
having the immunotherapy treatment and the tumour shrinking back
and everything to dead in a week," she said.

Mrs May was herself diagnosed with endometrial cancer in March
last year, sending her to hospital, then back to family in the UK
for three weeks before eventually "falling in a heap" with severe
depression.

A remote area nurse working in the Northern Territory while her
husband tried to finish their Innisfail home, she had been earning
good money.

At that point, the house would be finished soon and repayments on
a loan and three mortgages on two investment properties were
progressing as planned.

But battling depression and recovering from cancer without her
rock, the 58-year-old said she was unable to work.

"I was down to my last $120 last week. I took all the money out of
my savings account that I put aside for my grandson," she said,
adding that she was returning to work in the Northern Territory
despite not being ready.

Mr Cameron started work as a carpenter in New Zealand in 1957 and
was exposed to asbestos at work for a total of 15 years between
1960 and 1978.

After moving to Queensland, he was exposed to the deadly fibres
for about another three years.

Before his death, Mr Cameron applied for compensation under New
Zealand law and was paid out $NZD133,802.

"Kev", thinking he was going to make a full recovery, bought a
beautiful old Triumph Bonneville, which he rode maybe half a dozen
times before his death, and poured money into the house.

Mrs May said her legal advice at the time was that the Kiwi
compensation would be easier to claim but wouldn't affect her
right to claim in Queensland.

According to the Workers' Compensation Regulator, confirmed by the
QIRC in January, that was wrong and the New Zealand claim
cancelled his entitlement to any claim in Queensland.

Michael Grant-Taylor QC, acting for Mrs May, argued that one
section of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act seemed
to only address compensation from another state of Australia, and
clashed with another section.

"The act specifically allows a worker to be compensated under the
act when they have already been compensated for the same
condition," he argued.

"There cannot be any other logical analysis of how s 128C applies:
it clearly does not work with s 118 and the statutory declaration
required under s 118."

But the Workers' Compensation Regulator's counsel submitted the
intention of that part of the act was to avoid "double dipping"
generally and there was no inconsistency.

The QIRC agreed but also called for the Queensland Parliament to
clarify the act in certain places.

"Although I accept that in the circumstances of this case Mr
Cameron's estate is barred from claiming what amounts to a
significant sum, an election was made to claim in New Zealand
where a smaller, but nevertheless substantial, award was made."

Turner Freeman associate Ciaran Ehrich said he was still
considering whether to appeal but Mrs May appeared to have given
up on challenging further.

"The problems with these claims is that it often crosses borders
so it's a very complex field to look at," Mr Ehrich said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Co. Fights Community Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Groundup.org.za reported that Kumba Iron Ore is demanding more
than R1.6 million from a group of residents of the Northern Cape
town of Dingleton after a battle over asbestos.

Kumba says the residents disrupted the process of rehabilitation
of a site near a railway where blue asbestos was spilled years
ago. The company needs to rehabilitate the site in order to expand
its Sishen iron ore mine near Dingleton.

Last September some of the Dingleton residents, accompanied by the
police, went to the site of the work and voiced their anger that
rehabilitation was being carried out while they were still living
in the town.

They said rehabilitation workers were wearing "space suits" while
the residents walked around without protection. When asbestos is
disturbed, fibres are released into the air. If inhaled, this can
cause asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lining of the lung.

"You cannot rehabilitate, remove or disturb the asbestos while
there are still people living here," said Nick Visagie, one of the
remaining residents.

Kumba is also relocating the entire town of Dingleton. Only 25
families remain and are refusing to move on Kumba's terms.

Visagie, who was part of the group who objected to the
rehabilitation, said the group had been summoned to the Kimberley
High Court where Kumba was granted an interdict preventing them
from further interfering with the rehabilitation.

Kumba now wants the court to order the residents to pay R1.6
million to cover the costs that the mine incurred while the
rehabilitation was on hold. (Kumba's summons cites five people,
but some of the court papers refer to six.)

The presence of blue asbestos in the Dingleton area is a result of
spillage that occurred years ago when asbestos was still mined in
the Northern Cape and was transported by railway. While the
spillage was not caused by Kumba, the mining company is
responsible for the rehabilitation as it needs the area to expand
the Sishen mine.

Jacob Rooiland believes that Kumba's demand for R1.6 million is an
attempt to force the residents to move from the town. "[Kumba]
knows we don't have the money. They are actually after our
property," says Rooiland.

Visagie states in his founding affidavit for the case that he
believes that the mine did not have proper authorisation to
rehabilitate asbestos. He said that the asbestos alongside the
railway posed no risk to the residents as it was covered by
"several metres of earth". It is in disturbing it, that the
asbestos became dangerous to the residents of the town, he said.

Victor Gorrah, another resident of Dingleton, states in his
affidavit that they object to the rehabilitation as "it poses a
threat to the health of the community".

All the residents insist that they were peaceful when they engaged
with the rehabilitation company.

Asbestos is a carcinogen and occurs naturally in the environment.
It was used in the manufacturing of many common goods until the
dangers associated with its use were discovered. Blue asbestos is
one of the most dangerous forms of asbestos.

George Maluleke, a general manager for projects at Kumba,
explained to GroundUp that an independent company had been
commissioned to inspect the manner in which the rehabilitation was
conducted. Kumba had applied for permission from the Department of
Labour and this was granted. He said "monitoring points" had been
set up to assess asbestos spillage as the rehabilitation was
carried out.

Maluleke said when the company that was to conduct the
rehabilitation began to work, some members of the Dingleton
community demonstrated, stopping the work, and "threatened to
attack security guys as well".

Kumba is now trying to recover the costs incurred for every day
that the company could not carry out its work. In addition, Kumba
wants those who caused the disruption to pay the costs of the
lawsuit.

In the High Court summons, Sishen Iron Ore, a subsidiary of Kumba,
says that from September 2016 the defendants threatened to damage
equipment and machinery, harassed and intimidated employees and
removed barricades from the area.

When GroundUp visited Dingleton the rehabilitation process
appeared to be continuing and the area was demarcated with a sign
reading "Danger Warning Asbestos".

GroundUp also saw blue asbestos in another section of the town,
far from where the rehabilitation was taking place. This asbestos
was clearly visible above the ground. It is not clear how this
asbestos ended up so far from the railway line where it is meant
to have originally spilled.

The case is set to be heard in the Kimberley High Court later this
year, where the residents will be represented by Richard Spoor
Attorneys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $411MM Asbestos Charge
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Walsworth, writing for Crain's Detroit, reported that
BorgWarner Inc., the Auburn Hills-based supplier of turbocharger
and emissions systems, reported a net loss of $293 million in the
fourth quarter of 2016 as it announced a one-time asbestos-related
charge of $411 million.

The company said adjusted earnings were up 8.7 percent to $339
million.

Revenue in the quarter rose 6.4 percent to $2.3 billion, up from
$2.1 billion in the year-earlier period, driven by a 20 percent
increase in its drivetrain division sales.

Drivetrain division sales totaled $883 million in the quarter, up
from $735 million in the year-earlier period.

Engine segment sales dipped 0.7 percent to $1.38 billion, compared
with $1.39 billion.

BorgWarner's fourth-quarter results included an after-tax one-time
noncash charge of $441 million for "indemnity and defense costs
for pending and future asbestos-related claims."

The supplier said the figure was "based on an undiscounted
estimate of indemnity and defense costs that may be incurred at
one of the company's subsidiaries on account of pending and
potential future asbestos-related claims that may be asserted for
the next 50 years."

In a related filing, BorgWarner said: "We have in the past been
named in a significant number of lawsuits each year alleging
injury related to exposure to asbestos in certain of our
historical products. We no longer manufacture, distribute, or sell
products that contain asbestos, and we vigorously defend against
asbestos-related claims. Over 80 percent of claims asserted
against us in recent years have been resolved with no payment to
the claimant."

For the year, adjusted earnings rose 7.8 percent to $1.3 billion,
up from $1.19 billion. Net income was $118.5 million, dropping
from $610 million in 2015.

Net revenue, however, rose to $9.1 billion, up from $8 billion.

BorgWarner ranks No. 28 on Automotive News' list of the top 100
global suppliers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed for Illegal Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bury Times reported that a Bury contractor has been jailed after
admitting illegally removing asbestos from a building he was
working on.

David William Briggs, trading as Briggs Demolition was found to
have ignored an asbestos survey while demolishing the former
Oakbank Training Centre in Chadderton, Oldham.

Manchester Magistrates' Court heard also failed to prevent
exposure to asbestos to workers and others on site.

The firm from Bridge Works, Wellington Street, Bury, had been
contracted to demolish the former education centre off Chadderton
Park Road and advised the site owners to have the site surveyed
for asbestos before demolition could began.

Mr Briggs, aged 75, recommended a suitable surveyor and the site
owner paid for a full asbestos survey to be carried out on Mr
Briggs' recommendation.

But the Health and Safety Executive, prosecuting, told the court
that Mr Briggs then chose to ignore the asbestos report which
identified approximately 230 square metres of asbestos materials
throughout the buildings, and began demolition without having any
of it safely removed.

The HSE first visited the site in 2015, and found that
approximately half of the buildings had been demolished or partly
demolished. When Mr Briggs was asked if the asbestos had been
removed he denied there was any on site.

A prohibition notice was served on him and the site owners,
stopping work until the extent of the asbestos disturbance could
be established. Scientists from the Health and Safety Laboratory
confirmed the findings of the original asbestos survey report and
identified hazardous asbestos in the remaining buildings.

The court was told that that three workers were potentially
exposed to deadly asbestos fibres. Local residents and people
passing by the site were also at risk due to the uncontrolled
method of demolition where large amounts of asbestos were present.

David Briggs was charged with failing to protect the safety of his
employees, failing to protect members of the public, failing to
prevent the spread of asbestos and one count of illegally removing
asbestos materials without a license.

David William Briggs, of Wellington Street, Bury, pleaded guilty
to breaching Section 2(1) & Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety
at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulations 8 (1) and 16 of the Control
of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was sentenced to 24 weeks in
prison.

Speaking after the case, HSE inspector Matt Greenly said: "Mr
Briggs wilfully ignored a professional asbestos survey, instigated
by himself, and in doing so failed in his duty to protect his
workers and anyone else around this site from a foreseeable risk
of serious harm. Asbestos related diseases are currently
untreatable and claim the lives of an estimated 5,000 people per
year in the UK.

"Anyone who worked on this site at this time, due to the lack of
care taken by Mr Briggs, could possibly face a life shortening
disease at some point over the next 30 years from an exposure
which was totally preventable. This case sends a clear message to
any individual or company that it does not pay to ignore known
risks on site, especially to increase profits at the expense of
people's lives."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transport Workers Exposed to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
My Sunshine Coast reported that the ETU has called on the
Department of Transport and Main Roads to put a stop to all below
ground work on traffic lights and street lights statewide until
asbestos discovered in the network is located.

It was discovered Department of Transport and Main Roads/Roadtek
workers had been exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials in traffic light and street light pits and conduits
throughout the state-owned network, as well as some local and
regional council networks the Department are contracted to
maintain.

ETU Queensland and NT Organiser Brenton Muller said despite the
discovery of the dangerous materials the Department had not put a
halt to work in the suspect areas.

"Hundreds of employees of the Department have been put at risk by
their decision not to adhere to the Safe Work Method Statements
and Asbestos Management Framework and put a stop to the work," Mr
Muller said.

"These employees aren't the only people at risk of exposure to
asbestos -- their families could also be impacted by them
unknowingly taking home asbestos dust on clothing.

"There could be thousands of Queenslanders exposed to deadly
asbestos due to this Departmental mismanagement."

Mr Muller said while Workplace Health and Safety Queensland had
agreed that the Department was in breach of regulations covering
the management of asbestos, they were not taking action.

"We are calling on Workplace Health and Safety Queensland to do
their job and immediately protect these workers exposed to
asbestos," he said.

"The lives of Queensland workers are being put at risk as
government bureaucrats twiddle their thumbs and avoid taking
direct action against this threat to workers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Axminster Flats
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Carson, writing for Midweek Herald, reported that council
chiefs have approved urgent work to remove dangerous asbestos from
a sheltered housing complex in Axminster.

East Devon District Council's cabinet has agreed funding of up to
GBP67,000 for the works at Poplar Mount Flats - some 19
households.

The asbestos has been discovered in the loft -- an area which
houses the passenger lift equipment.

"If an urgent service is not undertaken, the lift will need to be
shut down," warned a report.

"Shutting the lift down will have serious consequences for tenants
and in some cases we may need to consider relocating tenants if
they are unable to use the steps to access their properties."

Asking members to approve the 'urgent' works, the report added:
"As an immediate safety precaution, the areas are both currently
closed off and no access is currently permitted without the
support of an asbestos specialist who can carefully manage any
urgent need to enter the space.

"This requires significant works and cost in terms of creating an
enclosed area that can be safely accessed. This also requires time
that in many scenarios of needing to access the area we would not
have as we would be faced with an emergency situation."

Work began this week to remove the asbestos and is expected to be
completed by mid March.

Asbestos was widely used for insulation and fire prevention until
1999 but evidence shows its fibres can cause cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Rejects Removal Statute Interpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reported that when attempting
to remove civil lawsuits from state to federal court, business
defendants often must contend with not one, but two opponents. One
opponent, of course, is the plaintiff, who prefers the home
cooking of a local judge and jury. The second opponent is the
federal district court judge, who may be loath to inflate the size
of his docket. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit late
last month reversed one district court judge's crabbed
interpretation of a removal statute which consigned an asbestos-
liability defendant to the notoriously pro-plaintiff Louisiana
state courts.

The lawsuit underlying the Fifth Circuit's Zeringue v. Crane
Company decision is part of the "elephantine mass of asbestos
cases" that have plagued thousands of businesses for decades.
Zeringue claims that Crane and 20 other companies unlawfully
exposed him to asbestos 65 years ago when he was serving in the
Navy.  As is all too common in such suits, Zeringue fails to
specify which of the 21 companies produced the asbestos that
harmed him, or when the exposure actually occurred.

Crane Company removed the suit to federal district court under the
federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section1442(a)(1).
Zeringue moved to remand back to state court. Even though Crane
had arguably met all of Section1442(a)(1)'s requirements, the
trial court applied the statute narrowly and granted the
plaintiff's motion. Crane appealed.

The federal-officer removal provision is available to government
contractors such as Crane which, by manufacturing a product (in
this case, asbestos-lined industrial valves) to a government
client's precise specifications, constitutes a "person acting
under [an officer] of the United States." The Fifth Circuit agreed
that Crane offered evidence sufficient to establish that it was
acting under the Navy's direction.

Contractors also must show that they have a "colorable" federal
defense in opposition to the plaintiff's state-law claims. Crane
intended to invoke the "government contractor defense," which the
court explained was "an extension of the immunity afforded to the
federal government for the performance of discretionary actions."
Contractors are immune from suit if the US provided precise design
specifications, the product conformed to those specs, and the
contractor warned the US about the product's dangers. A new WLF
Legal Opinion Letter, California Appeals Court Breaks with Ninth
Circuit, Accepts Government-Contractor Defense in Asbestos
Liability Suit, explains the defense in more detail.

Zeringue argued that in order to benefit from the federal-officer
removal statute, Crane had to prove that it met each factor of the
government-contractor defense. The Fifth Circuit responded that a
defendant need not "win his case before he can have it removed,"
and held that Crane had provided sufficient information supporting
a "colorable" government-contractor defense.

Finally, Section1442(a)(1) only allows for the removal of a state
suit "for or relating to any act under color of such office."
Courts have interpreted this to mean that government contractors
must establish "a nexus, a 'causal connection' between the charged
conduct and asserted official authority." On this question, the
lower court accepted Zeringue's argument that Crane must show that
it was acting under "precise federal direction," a standard the
court concluded Crane could not meet.

The Fifth Circuit held that Zeringue's construction was
inconsistent with the plain language of Section1442(a)(1). The
term "relating to," the court explained, reflects that Congress
intended the causal connection requirement to be construed
broadly. Crane's relationship with the plaintiff "derives solely"
from the company's contract to provide valves to the Navy. The
court added "that official authority relates to Crane's allegedly
improper actions, namely its use of asbestos in those parts."

The federal-officer removal statute and the government-contractor
defense share common purposes. Both protect the federal government
and American taxpayers from the collateral costs of litigation
against contractors. If contractors could be haled into state
court and sued for damages related to products manufactured to
government specifications, those contractors would either pass
liability costs onto the governmental client or recede from
contracting altogether. In the latter case, government would then
have to produce its own products, an outcome no taxpayer should
welcome.

Zeringue should prove very useful not only to targets of asbestos
litigation that are engaged in defense contracting, but also to
other government contractors sued under state product-liability
theories such as defective design. It also is a further reflection
that the Fifth Circuit respects the purpose of and need for
federal removal. The decision comes a little less than a year
after an en banc panel of the court decided in Flagg v. Stryker
Corp. that plaintiffs cannot defeat removal by fraudulently
joining extraneous parties for the purpose of eliminating federal
jurisdiction.  WLF advocated that outcome in an amicus brief filed
in the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Closes Oxford University Bldg.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that about 1,650 staff and students will have to
move out of an Oxford University building for up to two years
after asbestos was discovered.

The Tinbergen Building, which houses the departments of zoology
and experimental psychology, will be closed from Monday.
A university spokesman said it was not believed there was a health
risk to regular users of the building.

He said asbestos was found last year, but it was not in
"accessible" areas.

'Unprecedented situation'

A total of 750 staff are based in the building and it is used by
900 students.

A statement said: "We do not believe there is, or has been, a
health risk to regular users of the building, and more than 200
air quality readings, taken since September 2016, support this
belief.

"But this asbestos cannot be removed while the building is
occupied, so we have decided to close the building while expert
contractors carry out remedial works.

"We apologise to staff and students for the inconvenience that
this unprecedented situation will cause, and we will do all we can
to support them so that research and teaching can continue."
Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibres can cause illnesses
including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Asbestos Spy Must Reveal Client
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that it's been several months since it
was revealed that international anti-asbestos groups were
infiltrated by a spy. That spy was 50-year old Robert Moore, the
brother of a BBC producer. He had been employed for over four
years by a corporate intelligence firm called K2 Intelligence with
an assignment to infiltrate anti-asbestos organizations and
document the confidential information that he gathered. Now the
High Court has reviewed the case and ordered that K2 Intelligence
must reveal the identity of their client, ruling that they were
"involved in wrongdoing." The next hearing in the case will be
held on Tuesday.

The case reads like a spy movie. Moore was paid more than 460,000
pounds as well as expenses for the specific purpose of
infiltrating the anti-asbestos movement and providing information
on their plans for highlighting asbestos' risks. When he was hired
he assured K2 Intelligence, saying, "I am confident I can enter
this world relatively easily and with a high level of legitimacy
and credibility." He then proceeded to befriend leaders within the
organizations, indicating that he was a documentary maker and that
he planned on filming a documentary or series for British channel
BBC4. The network indicated that they had no series planned and no
involvement in the situation.

Among those that Moore had targeted were Laurie Kazan-Allen, a
coordinator of the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat.
Speaking of the case, she indicated that she had been shocked to
learn that she had been targeted in this way. "I feel personally
betrayed and professionally abused by his deception and those who
commissioned him to infiltrate our network."

Though it is not yet clear who K2 Intelligence's client was or
what they hoped to gain from the information Moore was gathering,
the intrigue is of particular interest. The history of asbestos
includes reports that were commissioned by asbestos companies that
were later hushed up in order to avoid liability for the damages
caused by asbestos. Even today, with irrefutable scientific
research confirming the material's dangers, powerful asbestos
lobbies continue to work to keep the material in use.

Asbestos has caused untold global misery, with those who have been
exposed to the material at risk for mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases. If you or someone you love has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-
692-86 to speak with one of our Patient Advocates. We will connect
you with people who can help you file a claim with the asbestos
bankruptcy trusts, and provide you with other helpful information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Force Eviction in Boise Center
--------------------------------------------------------
George Prentice, writing for Boise Weekly, reported that since
1952, countless men and women have walked through the doors of the
Grapevine Club, a support and recovery center in the North End
that holds several daily meetings for people in Twelve Step
protrams.

"I was one of those lives saved," said one man, identified only as
Bob. "I haven't had a drink since Nov. 22, 1985. That's when I
first set foot here. This is my family. This is my home."

At the building the Grapevine Club calls home, the roof leaks and
the electrical, plumbing and fire suppression systems are all out
of code. The owner of the building was approached by the City of
Boise in late 2014 regarding the problems, and City Council
decided to work with the Grapevine Club to help it either move out
or find a way to raise enough funds to buy and renovate the
building.

Time has run out. The Boise City Public Works Department recently
conducted an inspection of the building and found both asbestos
and lead-based paint, which can cause serious health effects.

"The potential for exposure ... is very concerning due to the
condition of the paint and the lack of cleaning and general upkeep
of the building," wrote Abigal Germaine of the Office of the Boise
City Attorney.  "The Department of Public Works and the City
believe that occupying the building in its current condition is
potentially unsafe, especially to children and women who are
pregnant. The city recommends that Grapevine vacate the building
immediately."

Heeding the recommendation, the building will be closed off to any
occupancy effective Friday, Feb. 17.

"We have to secure that building next week and then we'll assess
on where to go next," City of Boise Communications Director Mike
Journee told Boise Weekly. "We should stress that there is no
concern beyond the premises."

In a formal notice to the Grapevine, the city attorney's office
stated it is "currently discussing potential stabilization options
going forward and will notify the Grapevine when further
information is available."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins at Elementary School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vera Westbrook, writing for The News-Review, reported that
asbestos abatement began at Lookingglass Elementary School
following a fire that destroyed the school's historic gymnasium on
Dec. 27.

Workers began prepping the site after students went home on
Thursday by setting up dumpsters and hanging up black polyethylene
plastic sheeting on fences around the burn site that provided a
barrier to protect the public from the visual impact.

"We are doing everything we can to ensure public health is met,"
said Project Manager Chris McKay with HMK Company from Salem.

Earlier this week, McKay met with a regional environmental
specialist from the Department of Environmental Quality to walk
the site. McKay laid out the cleanup plan and the DEQ
representative agreed to it.

Since Lookingglass runs on a four-day school week, demolition
workers were scheduled to clean up the rubble between Friday and
Sunday for 10 working days during the next few weeks to avoid
congestion during school days.

McKay said the cleanup project will begin with asbestos abatement
followed by complete demolition and clearing of debris, leaving
behind a flat slab of dirt when the work is done. The project was
estimated at $81,000.

All Aspects Environmental and Demolition from Sutherlin was the
contractor handling the cleanup. On Friday, six workers wearing
disposable coveralls with respirators and hard hats were on site.

"There is asbestos in there, but it's limited to specific areas,"
McKay said.

Samples of the debris were taken to isolate the areas that
contained asbestos. All the positive materials were located on the
west side of the building in the tile floors, pipe insulation and
wall paneling in the boiler room.

Asbestos isn't flammable and ends up as dust. When blended with
debris, it's hard to tell where it is, McKay said.

Although there wasn't much asbestos in the rubble, "the problem
is, because of the fire and debris, it is nearly impossible to
mark what is asbestos and what isn't," McKay said. "That's why
we're taking these precautions."

Todd Kreuter, an independent project specialist from G2
Consultants in Lake Oswego, will also be on site taking air
samples during the cleanup. He took a baseline test prior to the
abatement and will compare air samples during the abatement to
ensure cleanup procedures are not posing any risk to the public.

The six workers began knocking down the west wall and one of the
chimneys. They then used shovels and a mini track hoe to separate
materials such as wood and metal that don't contain asbestos from
debris that contained asbestos.

With an excavator, the piles of asbestos containing debris were
then transferred into a dumpster lined with two layers of clear
polyethylene plastic. Workers were also hosing the site with water
to keep the dust down.

Once a dumpster was filled, the plastic wrapped around the
asbestos debris was sealed with tape and glue to ensure the dust
did not escape. A truck then transported the dumpster to an
asbestos landfill at the Douglas County dump.

The asbestos abatement should be completed this weekend, with the
nonasbestos demolition project continuing next weekend.

On Feb. 22, the school district will meet in a work session with
consultants and the insurance company to evaluate the loss and
determine the cost of rebuilding the lost structure. The school
district will then decide between rebuilding or taking a cash
settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk High Among Shipyard Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that a
new analysis of Baltimore shipyard workers in the 1950s and 1960s
suggests that exposure to a range of toxic substances raised their
risk for lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma, and early death.

Researchers with the Uniformed Services University in Maryland,
the National Cancer Institute, and the US Military Academy in
Westpoint, New York traced the work and health histories of more
than 4,700 workers employed at the Coast Guard Shipyard in
Baltimore between 1950 and 1964.

The workers were analyzed for their exposure to five different
types of chemicals including solvents, lead, oils/greases, wood
dust and asbestos, the leading cause of malignant mesothelioma.
Their vital status was tracked through 2001.

The Impact of Asbestos Exposure

Calculating exposures using standardized mortality ratios, the
research team found that all five of the chemical categories to
which these workers were exposed raised their risk for pleural
mesothelioma and lung cancer.

Because asbestos was so pervasive in shipyards, the researchers
suggest that its presence may have skewed their efforts to
independently evaluate the impact of other chemicals.

"Findings from efforts to evaluate solvents, lead, oils/greases,
and wood dust in isolation of asbestos suggested that the excesses
from these other exposures may be due to residual confounding from
asbestos exposure," writes author Jennifer Rusiecki, a researcher
in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics at the
Uniformed Services University.

The Mesothelioma Risk of Working on Ships

Mesothelioma experts have long known that shipyards were dangerous
places to work. From the 1940s to the 1980s, asbestos, a strong,
non-corrosive insulator and building material impervious to heat
and fire, was used throughout ships, from the engine room to the
kitchen.

Coast guard workers who helped build or repair such ships, as well
as those who spent months of their lives living on them, face a
higher lifetime risk of pleural mesothelioma because of their
exposure to asbestos dust.

Asbestos is "biopersistent", meaning that, once the dust is
inhaled, it is difficult or impossible for the lungs to expel the
toxic fibers which work their way deep into the tissue over time,
potentially triggering mesothelioma decades later.

Longer Exposure Leads to Higher Mesothelioma Risk

In a previous cohort study of shipyard workers conducted by the
same team of researchers who conducted the Coast Guard study,
workers were found to have a higher risk of death from all causes,
lung cancer, and mesothelioma the longer they worked in the
shipyard.

Other studies have also confirmed the mesothelioma risk of long-
standing asbestos exposure. A 2016 Italian study found that 192
shipyard workers diagnosed with mesothelioma had an average
occupational exposure duration of 24 years, which was longer than
the workers who developed lung cancer.

Because of the long latency of mesothelioma, most patients did not
develop symptoms until an average of 31 years after their last
asbestos exposure.

Mesothelioma Risk Persists in Shipyards

Even with modern regulations in place to protect workers from
mesothelioma, shipyards remain dangerous. Although asbestos is no
longer used in most shipbuilding, workers involved in dismantling
decommissioned ships (called shipbreaking) may also be at risk for
mesothelioma if they accidentally breathe in or ingest asbestos
fibers.

In the US, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
guidelines for safe shipbreaking in the presence of asbestos
include wearing special negative-pressure respirators and limiting
the time workers can spend in an asbestos-laden environment.

Source:

Rusiecki, J, et al, "Mortality among Coast Guard Shipyard workers:
a retrospective cohort study of specific exposures", February
2017, Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, Epub
ahead of print.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Continues
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that a Michigan teacher's asbestos lawsuit alleging
asbestos exposure from grinding brakes is still at trial in
Madison County Associate Judge Stephen Stobb's courtroom.

The trial began Tuesday. The nation's busiest asbestos docket
typically sees an average of one asbestos trial per year. Most
asbestos cases settle.

Plaintiffs Stanley Urban Jr. and his wife Janet Urban are
represented by Tom Hart of Shrader & Associates.

Jim Lowry of Dallas represents Hennessy Industries Inc., the only
remaining defendant.

The Urbans filed their complaint in March 2013.

All of Stanley Urban's asbestos exposures occurred in Michigan.

Urban alleges he was exposed to asbestos-containing products while
working at various auto dealerships in Michigan from the 1960s to
1974 and while working at several schools as an auto technology
teacher from 1975 to present.

More specifically, Urban claims he was exposed to asbestos while
using Hennessy's brake grinders.

During opening statements on Wednesday, Lowry explained that
Hennessy manufactured the actual tool that grinded the brakes and
didn't manufacture any asbestos-containing products. The
plaintiff's asbestos exposure came from the asbestos-containing
brakes that Urban would have grinded off the brake shoe.

In January 2013, Urban was diagnosed with mesothelioma both above
and below his diaphragm as a result of his asbestos exposure.

During opening statements, Hart said Urban's cancer is still
there, but chemotherapy has helped slow down its progression. The
Urbans have been present at the trial.

Hart told jurors that Urban may look healthy now, but said they
can't see what is happening on the inside.

Hart said the Urbans' have more than $800,000 in medical expenses
and expect to lose more than $600,000 in Urban's income.

But he went further and asked the jury to award the Urbans $8.5
million in compensatory damages during his opening statements.

"We can only ask you for monetary damages," he said.

Lowry objected and moved for a mistrial. Stobbs denied the motion
at this time.

Attorney Bob Rich also presented a portion of Hennessy's opening
statements on Wednesday, tracing the history of Hennessy and
Ammco, Hennesy's predecessor.

Rich presented tests showing the asbestos dust produced by the
brake grinders met all OSHA standards and safety measures. He said
that as OSHA learned more about the dangers of asbestos, Ammco
updated its products and warnings in accordance with the most
recent knowledge at that time.

He said Ammco did not know more about asbestos dangers than the
leading researchers.

The early brake grinders included a dust bag that was intended to
keep the shop clean, but also served as a means to minimize
asbestos dust.

However, after OSHA increased its standards for allowable asbestos
exposure, Ammco redesigned its grinder to allow for better dust
collection and ventilation even though its previous design met the
requirements, Rich said.

Rich explained that OSHA standards began by allowing for 30 f/cc
(fibers per cubic centimeter) in 1946 to the current .1 f/cc
standard.

He added that one of the world's leading asbestos researchers even
told those working with asbestos-containing products to continue
their work as late as 1972.

Rich also explained that the brake grinder's manual instructed
users to empty the dust bag often, but he said Urban only emptied
it a few times per year, resulting in more dust.

However, during a video deposition on Thursday, Dr. Arthur Frank
of Drexel University School of Public Health testified that he
believed Urban's exposure to asbestos while grinding brakes was a
substantial contributing factor to his mesothelioma.

Frank testified that people could develop cancer by working with
brake grinders, and did develop asbestos-related cancers. He
explained that as workers' asbestos exposures increase, their
chances of developing asbestos-related diseases increase.

Frank said more asbestos fibers were blown into the air from light
grinding than someone would be exposed to from background exposure
in 70 years.

He added that grinding around 800 or so brakes would expose Urban
to billions or trillions of airborne asbestos fibers in his
lifetime.

Testimony for the case is expected to continue Monday.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-437


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Months of Asbestos Removal Start in Tonga
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioNZ.co.nz reported that a number of key buildings around Tonga
are being closed to allow the removal of asbestos.

The Tongan government's environmental officer Mafile'o Masi said
the removal, being done through the European Union-funded Pacwaste
programme by a European company, Polyeco, was expected to take
about three months to complete.

She said about 6,000 square metres of asbestos needed to be
removed and about two thirds of that was in the Prince Ngu
Hospital on Vava'u.

"A lot of people are still using the hospital but we have received
reassurance from the Ministry of Health that relocation of the
patients and workers there is not a problem."

Several buildings in Nuku'alofa are affected, including the main
hospital, Vaiola, but there the presence of asbestos is confined
to a short covered walkway and its removal will not interfere with
the hospital's operations.

The asbestos waste is to be sealed and isolated in landfills on
Tongatapu and on Vava'u.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundreds Back Bid to Save Asbestos Cases Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
North-west Evening Mail reported that hundreds have backed a
campaign to save a highly skilled Barrow team who process claims
for disability benefits and industrial illnesses.

Phoenix House in Barrow has been put at risk of closure under
plans by the Department for Work and Pensions to shut and relocate
several health assessment offices and job centres across Britain.

Around 80 members of staff are based at the Stephen Street site,
specialising in working with individuals with industrial diseases
such as mesothelioma. Many workers have been left fearing they
will be made redundant if they cannot move to another DWP site.

A petition has been set up on change.org calling on the government
to save Phoenix House and retain the expertise in the local area.

It has so far collected more than 600 signatures, with people from
across the country, and some from as far away as Australia, adding
their support the campaign by the Cumbrian branch of the Public
and Communication Services Union.

The petition states: "Over 1,000 combined years of experience
helping victims of asbestos related lung diseases and industrial
disease will be lost.

"Excellent working relationships with asbestos support groups,
unions and charities will end.

"Industrial disease has had and continues to have a devastating
effect on workers and families throughout the country meaning this
proposed closure could have an effect on every worker in the
land."

Campaigners believe the facility must stay local as the Barrow
borough has the highest rate of mortality for mesothelioma in
England at 14.3 deaths per 100,000 people - triple the national
average.

Exposure to asbestos, which was once commonly used in the
shipbuilding industry and in older construction methods, can cause
the rare malignant lung cancer of mesothelioma to form many years
later.

Workers at Phoenix House processes claims for welfare support such
as the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, the Constant
Attendance Allowance, and the 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme.

Bob Pointer, chair of Cumbria Asbestos Related Disease Support
(CARDS), is worried about the impact any closure will have on the
group which meets monthly in Barrow.

He said: "It means we wouldn't have a specialist benefit office
for the worst affected area for asbestos in the country."

The decision to close Phoenix House is out for consultation but if
it gets the green light then the closure will take place by March
2018.

The government is shrinking the DWP estate and merging offices to
close "under-used" buildings and save money.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ottawa Schools Rife with Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------
Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reported that every school Kim
Appel taught at over her 20-year teaching career contained
asbestos. Every one.

That's not surprising, though, when you consider that more than
200 schools in Ottawa were built with the ubiquitous construction
material in their floors, ceilings, walls and pipes.

Appel, now a health and safety rep with the Ontario Secondary
School Teachers' Federation, isn't afraid of getting sick because
she knows how to protect herself from exposure to asbestos.

But she has witnessed first-hand the deadly effects of the toxic
material, and has become an advocate for the public's right to
know exactly where asbestos lurks.

"In Ottawa, a good friend of mine ... did die from mesothelioma,"
said Appel, referring to a teacher who worked at Sir Robert Borden
High School. "He's only been in one school -- his only job that he
ever did for 40 years. So [asbestos] seems to be a likely scenario
for it."

Appel has heard other stories about teachers across the province
who were exposed to asbestos years ago and who have become sick.

She becomes emotional and gets what she calls "tingles" when she
talks about it.

"Those are the reasons why we do what we do . . . that their
deaths weren't in vain."

Between the 1930s to the mid-1980s asbestos, considered a good
fire retardant and insulator, was wrapped around pipes, covered
gym ceilings and used in plaster walls and flooring glue.

It's now considered a toxic carcinogen, and the federal government
has taken steps to ban the use and import of asbestos materials in
this country.

Asbestos can be contained safely as long as it's not disturbed,
but Ottawa schools built as long ago as 1895 need constant repair,
renovation and upgrades.

"Even to update lights, update ceilings, updates ceiling tiles, we
start to disturb things," said Appel.

She said keeping schools safe requires constant communication and
coordination between school boards, staff and unions.

"We're starting to work together and we're starting to do
awareness," said Appel. "It's not something that we're saying
we're perfect at or that it's got there yet."

The board

The Ottawa Carleton District School Board is the city's largest,
so it's no surprise it has the most schools -- some 115 -- that
contain asbestos.

"I don't think there's a meeting that we have as a management
group in facilities that asbestos issues don't come up," said Mike
Carson, the board's superintendent of facilities. "We can manage
it. We are making sure that we're holding ourselves accountable,
not only with the Ministry of Labour regulations, but also our own
policies."

Those policies include maintaining up-to-date inventories in every
school, usually available in the chief custodian's office. Carson
said right now those reports are only on paper, and aren't
digitalized or available online.

Any time a company is contracted to do repairs or work in a
school, the "designated substances manual" or asbestos inventory
is supposed to be provided to the workers. It's up to the board
and its inspectors to make sure those reports are updated.

Carson said in any given year, the board will spend $20 million to
$25 million on facilities, and a portion of that money is used for
asbestos removal.

But he said asbestos will remain in many of Ottawa's schools for
years to come, so openness is key.

"I think the communication goes a long way, to not only calm
people, but help them help us if they see a problem," said Carson.
"People need to know what the risks are, what we're doing to
minimize the risk, and if they have concerns that we can respond
promptly."

The parent

Claire Todd probably knows more about all the places asbestos can
hide in a school than she ever wanted to know.

The mother of twins in Grade 5 and a member and former co-chair of
the parent council at Broadview Public School, Todd still has
hundreds of pages of asbestos reports on her desktop computer.

"I was concerned about it, because there had been things that
happened at Broadview that would disturb the asbestos," said Todd,
scrolling through the files. "When I first started reading that
document, asbestos kept coming up."

Beyond asbestos, Broadview's extensive problems included lead
pipes, a fire and floods that prompted the decision to build a new
school on adjacent property. Demolition of the original building
began last week, after the asbestos contaminants were removed.

'I think if I were a parent and my kids were in a school that was
having a big renovation done, I would want to know.'
- Claire Todd, parent
While Todd believes in vigilance when it comes to asbestos, she
doesn't think parents or kids should be worried.

"I just want to make sure people don't feel really scared that
their school contains asbestos because I think that it's in the
school board's best interest to make sure everybody's safe, the
workers and students," said Todd.

If parents are concerned, she said, they just need to ask for the
information in the reports.

"I think if I were a parent and my kids were in a school that was
having a big renovation done, I would want to know."

The law

A proposed law that goes to second reading debate at Queen's Park
this month calls for a ban on the use, reuse, import, transport or
sale of asbestos in Ontario.

The legislation would also require the Ministry of Labour to
create a register of all provincially owned or leased buildings
containing asbestos.

In December the federal government announced a similar registry
for federal buildings, to be in place by next year.

The takeaway

There's still work to do within the school system to boost
awareness about asbestos. For Kim Appel, that job begins at home.

"I talk to my kids about it. They're teenagers. They're in an old
school. They know because of what I do as my job," said Appel.
"They know that I've been into their school when there have been
projects on and I have been there to watch as they're testing the
air quality."

The lists and reports aren't complete: the Ministry of Labour has
been called to various school board sites after contractors
discovered asbestos without being warned first, Appel said.

Still, she doesn't want people to fly off the handle when they
hear the word "asbestos."

"We can ask, what condition is it in? Where is it found? What
things do I need to be aware of? Is it safe to hang things from
the ceiling? Those are questions that we would want people to know
that maybe they should be asking to protect themselves just to be
safe and healthy."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Asbestos Exposure on RHH Site
--------------------------------------------------------
Safety Culture reported that the RHH Redevelopment has been
advised of a potential asbestos exposure on the project site.

According to Project Director, Ben Moloney, he has been advised
that some of the Managing Contractor's workers have potentially
been exposed to asbestos in the E-Block area at the Royal Hobart
Hospital.

He said the works were conducted in an isolated construction zone
and not a staff or patient area.

"What is of upmost importance is that potentially affected workers
are offered support, together with detailed incident briefings and
these have been instigated by the Managing Contractor," he said.
Mr Moloney revealed that the presence of asbestos at the Royal
Hobart Hospital has long been known and that they have implemented
strict management procedures.

"To identify and remove asbestos prior to works, RHH Redevelopment
commissions an independent hygienist to undertake inspections and
testing for asbestos and report on the findings," he said.
Hygienists have inspected the area prior to the commencement of
works in the E-Block and no sources of asbestos have been
identified.

"However, it appears that due to an administrative error, a single
positive test for asbestos from a prior investigation of the same
area was not identified by the hygienist," said Mr Moloney.

"We are acting immediately to ensure our safety procedures are
strictly enforced.

"Appropriate cleaning of the construction area has been
completed."

WorkSafe Tasmania has been advised of the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos "Double-Dipping" Bill Reintroduced
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a bill
that targets the country's current asbestos injury compensation
system has been quietly reintroduced by a Texas federal lawmaker
who is hoping President Trump is more receptive than his
predecessor.

U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, a Republican who serves on the House
Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, re-submitted the GOP-backed bill last week.
Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Tom Marino, R-Pa., are listed as
cosponsors.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, or H.R.
906, would increase transparency in the asbestos trust system, in
which about 100 companies that were targeted frequently by
asbestos lawsuits declared bankruptcy to establish trusts to
compensate victims without having to use the civil courts system.

Elizabeth Peace, a spokeswoman for Farenthold, told Legal Newsline
in an email that H.R. 906 is the same version that was introduced
last Congress.

The 2017 version has not been folded into the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act or any other legislation, or at least not
yet, Peace noted.

The class action bill was introduced in April 2015 and merged with
the FACT Act in January 2016.

The House passed last year's Fairness in Class Action Litigation
and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or H.R. 1927, by a
vote of 211-188. Additional hearings were held by the Senate, but
ultimately it failed to move on the legislation.

Former President Barack Obama would have vetoed the bill had it
passed the Senate.

Farenthold's previous bill, H.R. 526 or the Furthering Asbestos
Claim Transparency Act of 2015, stalled in committee.

The initial version of the bill passed the House in 2013;
Farenthold was the sponsor.

"When attorneys and their clients bring false or exaggerated
claims to trusts, they take assets from deserving victims,"
Farenthold, now a four-term Congressman, said at the time. "The
FACT Act will discourage this kind of abuse by shining light on
the trust system, as sunlight is often the best disinfectant."

Like previous versions, this bill would require quarterly reports
on claims made to the trusts while taking measures to protect
claimants' personal information.

It also would require trusts to respond to information sought from
them by defendants in asbestos lawsuits. Defendants in those
lawsuits want to ensure that plaintiffs attorneys aren't fully
blaming their products while also blaming the products of
companies that established trusts.

It is a practice that was brought to light in Garlock Sealing
Technologies' bankruptcy proceeding.

Tort reform advocates are hopeful Farenthold's legislation will
move forward this time around, with a Republican majority in both
houses and a GOP president in place.

President Trump, as a real estate developer, has praised asbestos.

He tweeted in 2012 that asbestos could have prevented the World
Trade Center towers from collapsing on 9-11.

He told a Senate subcommittee on federal financial management,
government information and international security in 2005 that
asbestos is a far more superior fire-retardant than the material
now used in its place. He said comparing the two is like "a
heavyweight champion against a lightweight from high school."

"But in your great wisdom, you folks have said asbestos is a
horrible material, so it has to be removed," he told the
subcommittee.

In his 1997 book, "The Art of the Comeback," he went as far as
claim the anti-asbestos movement is the work of the mob.

"I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob,
because it was often mob-related companies that would do the
asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as
usual, the politicians relented," he wrote in the book.

Trump, in his book, argued the material, used in the past because
of its insulating and fire-resistant properties, was better at
"limiting the ravages of fire" compared to its replacements.

According to the National Cancer Institute at the National
Institutes of Health, asbestos is the name given to a group of
minerals that occur naturally in the environment as bundles of
fibers that can be separated into thin, durable threads. These
fibers are resistant to heat, fire and chemicals and do not
conduct electricity.

Asbestos has been classified as a known human carcinogen -- a
substance that causes cancer -- by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, studies have shown
that exposure to asbestos may increase the risk of lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a relatively rare cancer of the thin membranes that
line the chest and abdomen. While rare, mesothelioma is the most
common form of cancer associated with asbestos exposure.

It has a latency period of several decades but is often quickly
fatal once symptoms begin.

The FACT Act targets conduct by plaintiffs attorneys and their
claimants uncovered by Garlock Sealing Technologies during its
bankruptcy process. The information was unsealed by a Legal
Newsline lawsuit.

In January 2014, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled in a
landmark decision that plaintiffs attorneys had been withholding
evidence that could have been submitted to trusts while pursuing
lawsuits against Garlock.

They did so in order to maximize recovery in both systems, he
ruled. Companies targeted by lawsuits could not point to claims
made by the same individuals to the bankruptcy trusts as proof
that they weren't fully responsible for illnesses caused by
exposure.

Garlock had been permitted full discovery into the claims of 15
individuals and eventually filed racketeering lawsuits against the
law firms that represented them.

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Hodges wrote. "But that is not necessary because
the startling pattern of misrepresentation that has been shown is
sufficiently persuasive."

Ultimately, Hodges ordered Garlock to put $125 million in its
trust -- more than $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had
requested. Hodges ruled that Garlock's past record of verdicts and
settlements was not an indicator of future liabilities because of
the actions of plaintiffs attorneys.

Garlock eventually agreed to put more than $350 million in its
trust and dropped its racketeering lawsuits.

Despite the settlement, John Crane Inc. -- a company that
frequently finds itself targeted by asbestos attorneys -- has gone
on to file lawsuits against various asbestos law firms under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The company, in its racketeering claims, has pointed to the
evidence uncovered by Garlock during its bankruptcy proceeding.

In September, Dallas asbestos firm Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett PC asked that JCI's complaint against it be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

In a reply filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, the firm further argues that JCI cannot
combine insufficient allegations of general jurisdiction with
insufficient allegations of specific jurisdiction and "create
personal jurisdiction over the defendant from the mixture."

"JCI abandons any argument that general jurisdiction exists, and
instead argues that this Court can exercise specific jurisdiction
over this case -- which is premised on seven specific asbestos
cases litigated in California, Texas and Pennsylvania -- based on
entirely unrelated suits filed by Simon Greenstone against JCI,"
the firm wrote in its Dec. 2 reply.

JCI, in a more recent sur-reply, described Simon Greenstone's
arguments as an "erroneous characterization of facts and law."

"The Defendants withheld evidence of exposure to bankrupt
companies' products in litigation with JCI. The Defendants then
received payment from bankruptcy trusts for the same injuries
involved in litigation with JCI," the company wrote in its Dec. 13
filing. "But JCI and others had already compensated the plaintiffs
for those same injuries, and JCI had a right to seek contribution
from these bankruptcy trusts, which claims the Defendants
prevented by hiding evidence of their clients' exposure.

"JCI's claims do not require undoing state judgments -- in fact,
those judgments are taken as a given for purposes of JCI's
contribution claims. Instead, Defendants' fraud, not the
judgments, foreclosed JCI's contribution claims."

Judge Amy St. Eve, in a Feb. 8 minute entry, changed a status
hearing set for this week to March 27.

The defendant in another lawsuit filed by JCI, Philadelphia-based
Shein Law Center, has made similar jurisdictional arguments.

"JCI's claims are both factually unsupported and legally
unsupportable and, more critically, Defendants Benjamin P. Shein
and Shein Law Center Ltd. have no contacts with Illinois to
justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by this
Court," the firm wrote in a Dec. 16 filing, also in the Northern
District of Illinois.

"This case should be dismissed forthwith due to lack of
jurisdiction or, alternatively, due to failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted."

Judge John J. Tharp Jr. has set a status hearing for March 2.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered in Private School
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jenkins, writing for Ramapo Daily Voice, reported that
Rockland County officials discovered what could be asbestos in a
sealed utility closet within the Bais Yaakov Elementary School of
Rockland County, according to lohud.com.

County officials discovered the substance during an inspection on
Feb. 2, but allege school authorities would not allow them to test
it. As a precaution, the school sealed the closet and the adjacent
room. School officials also stated air samples came back negative
for asbestos, lohud.com reported.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies With Asbestos at Home Have Health Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Johnston, writing for Gizmodo, reported that the ACT Asbestos
Health Study, which looks at the health concerns of people who
have lived in a house with loose-fill asbestos insulation, has
release a third report.

The finding show one in three people "had seen a health
professional" for mental or physical health issues specifically
related to living in a house with loose-fill asbestos.

Loose fill insulation was installed in more than 1,000 Canberra
homes between 1968 and 1979, and in 2015 the ACT Government
commissioned the ANU National Centre for Epidemiology and
Population Health to undertake a two-year study to improve
understanding of the health risks of Mr Fluffy loose fill asbestos
insulation.

The ANU ACT Asbestos Health Study handed its first report to the
ACT government in September 2015, which described the trends and
risks of mesothelioma in the ACT from 1982 to 2014.

It found mesothelioma was a relatively rare cancer, with 140 cases
registered in the ACT between 1982 and 2014. Inhalation of
asbestos fibres is the predominant cause of mesothelioma and an
important contributor to risk of lung cancer in exposed people.

The report is based on surveys of 363 residents who recently lived
in a so-called "Mr Fluffy" house, along with 204 people who had
lived in these houses at some time in the past. The survey,
conducted between May and July 2016, found almost three quarters
(72 per cent) of recent residents were concerned about their
health from living in a Mr Fluffy house.

Researcher Associate Professor Phil Batterham said the results
found up to date information was a key to lowering the levels of
stress and anxiety for people who have lived in a Mr Fluffy house.

"Some people who responded to the survey have experienced high
levels of psychological distress and health concerns," said
Associate Professor Batterham, Acting Head of the ANU Centre for
Mental Health Research.

"However, the report finds people who have received health
information relating to exposure to asbestos reported lower levels
of stress and concern. We also found that most people surveyed
believed they have had adequate information about the health
issues associated with loose-fill asbestos."

Professor Batterham said the findings suggest that providing
timely and sufficient access to health information is important to
reducing the stresses associated with living in an affected
residence.

Other key findings included four out of five residents reporting
renovations to their "Mr Fluffy" house, 52 per cent having entered
the roof space and 64 per cent entering the under-floor space.

Two thirds said they had received "enough" health information
about health risks of asbestos.

25 per cent of survey respondents reported high levels of
distress, "which may or may not have been related to living in a
Mr Fluffy house" and more than three quarters of respondents said
they were concerned about their children's health.

The ANU says there have been similar findings among respondents
who had lived in Mr Fluffy homes in the past.

Chief Investigator Associate Professor Martyn Kirk said most
residents surveyed reported being in relatively good health. He
said at the time of survey, no current or recent residents
reported being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Associate Professor
Kirk, from the ANU National Centre for Epidemiology and Population
Health, also urged caution when interpreting the results.

"Fewer people responded to the survey than we expected, which
means those who didn't respond may have a different experience
than those reported in this survey. For recent residents, only
people from 262 houses responded, which is around one quarter of
Mr Fluffy homes," he said.

The ACT Health Asbestos Study is currently analysing data to
examine if there is an elevated risk of cancer in residents of Mr
Fluffy homes.

Anyone experiencing anxiety or concerns about living in a Mr
Fluffy house should contact their doctor, Capital Health Network
on 6287 8099, Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning in Fire-Ravaged NSW Towns
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that the number of NSW
homes razed by devastating bushfires has risen to 33, with
residents returning to inspect their properties warned about the
dangers of deadly asbestos fibres in destroyed buildings.

Most of the homes lost were in the state's central west where a
large blaze blackened 52,000 hectares east of Dunedoo. A church
was also reduced to ruins.

The NSW Rural Fire Service says five homes have been damaged
across the state.

There are unconfirmed reports properties have been lost after a
number of bushfires tore across NSW yesterday.

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia says a high
proportion of homes built before 1987 contain asbestos products so
returning residents should consider using masks and disposable
suits.

"Losing your home is tragic enough, but the last thing anyone
wants is to add the future suffering of asbestos-related diseases
because appropriate safety precautions weren't taken," president
Barry Robson said in a statement.

There are more than 50 fires still burning across NSW, with about
15 yet to be contained.

Farmer chokes back tears after losing his home, pets and livestock
to out-of-control NSW bushfire.

Firefighters were hoping to gain the upper hand before
temperatures rise again over the coming days.

There are 520 firefighters in the field on Tuesday night.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian says the extensive loss of livestock
has robbed many farmers of their livelihoods. She also praised the
courage and commitment of volunteer fire crews.

"Without their efforts, we would be looking at a very different
outcome today," she said during her first question time as premier
on Tuesday.

"There is no finer example of selflessness and sacrifice. The
entire state is indebted to our emergency services volunteers."

The Insurance Council of Australia estimates insured losses are at
least $20 million with that figure set to rise.

Council chief executive Rob Whelan says an "insurance catastrophe"
declaration has seen the industry escalate its response.

An historic homestead on the $20 million Tongy Station was among
at least 23 homes razed by the massive Sir Ivan fire in the
central west with the village of Uarbry losing at least five
houses.

The Sir Ivan fire was so "extraordinarily destructive" at its
height on Sunday that it created its own thunderstorm.

NSW faced its worst day in the history of fire danger ratings on
Sunday with an average temperature of 44C and strong winds.

Two firefighters were hospitalised; one with a severely lacerated
hand and the other with burns to his hands, arm and face.

The federal and NSW governments on Tuesday announced funds would
be made available to fire-affected communities across the state
under the joint Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dumped Asbestos Shuts Eyemouth Recycling Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a recycling centre in the Borders will be
forced to close for three days after asbestos was found dumped in
a skip.

The Eyemouth site will have to shut from 22 to 24 February in
order to safely dispose of the asbestos.

It has been estimated the final cost of dealing with the substance
will be a "four-figure sum" for the local authority.

Scottish Borders Council has urged the public and businesses to
use licensed contractors to remove the material.

Councillor David Paterson said: "It is hugely disappointing that
someone has acted in such an irresponsible manner by dumping
asbestos waste at one of our recycling centres.

"It could not only have proved dangerous to our staff and members
of the public, but has now forced Eyemouth Recycling Centre to
close for three days, affecting the service the council provides
to the local community.

"I would appeal to those who discover asbestos waste while working
or in their homes to contact a licensed contractor, who can deal
with it safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Kills Retired Chef
--------------------------------------------
Mirror reported that a pensioner died of lung disease after being
exposed to asbestos while washing her husband's work overalls, an
inquest heard.

Retired chef Jill Moore, 71, was said to have had "prolonged
exposure" to the killer substance while doing her family laundry.

Her husband Brian had been a mechanic between 1965 and 1990,
working on car parts such as brakes and transmission systems
containing asbestos.

The inquest in Ipswich, Suffolk, heard how asbestos dust and
residue remained on his overalls and was inhaled by Mrs Moore of
Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire.

She had mesothelioma diagnosed in November 2015 and died from the
disease on November 11 last year.

The inquest heard that Mrs Moore spend the last months of her life
living with her daughter-in-law Sue Preston in West Row, near Bury
St Edmunds, Suffolk.

Her family described her as "full of life" and "a fighter".

Assistant coroner Kevin McCarthy recorded a conclusion of
industrial disease as a result of severe lung disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rawlins Stops Demolition After Asbestos Find
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Abshire, writing for Rawlins Times, reported that the
demolition of a building has been put on hold after officials
discovered a not-so-pleasant surprise while tearing it down.

City Manager Scott Hannum said asbestos was discovered in the
former Uptown Motel, located at 619 W. Spruce St., during the
first day of demolition. The project was immediately suspended.

"There was some asbestos removal taken place the city had paid
for," Hannum said. "The way it was documented and put into a file
showed that the asbestos abatement was full and complete."

However, that proved to not be the case when workers discovered
asbestos. Hannum said the city immediately contacted the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality to see if the agency could
sign an emergency asbestos abatement plan. DEQ representatives are
expected to be in Rawlins today and an asbestos specialist has
already been in to evaluate the building.

The city has invoices from 2014 that suggests the asbestos
abatement had already occurred. Hannum said the building still
containing asbestos was a "misunderstanding" in the documentation.

The demolition has a cost of $20,000 to $25,000, Hannum said,
which will likely increase now. Hannum said it would cost an
estimated $16,000 to $20,000 to remove a "very small amount" of
asbestos. Other buildings in town, he said, would run $450,000 in
removing asbestos.

Hannum said when DEQ signs off on the abatement, the asbestos and
building should be down rather soon. However, the process will
likely not resume until Monday.

Since workers had been actively tearing the building down, there
is a pile of rubble in the northwest corner of the building that
does have asbestos within. However, Hannum said the scene was not
dangerous "with it being contained."

Hannum said workers who had been inside the building did not
suffer from any ill effects.

Workers have covered the rubble with plastic and anchored it. He
said the city would keep an eye on it to ensure it remains covered
in case of wind or animals.

Hannum said the process of taking the building down began in March
2010.






                            *********

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  * * *