CAR_Public/170303.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Friday, March 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 45



                            Headlines

A.C. MOORE: Faces "Rossmeisl" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
ALABAMA: Faces "Schultz" Class Action Over Cash Bond Payment
ALIZE II: "Salgado" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
ARCTIC CAT: LR Trust Files Securities Suit Over Textron Merger

AVMED INC: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hughes" Suit
BLUE SHIELD: Smith Seeks Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
BOW TRUSS: Former Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action
CACH OF NEW JERSEY: Faces "Shukla" Suit Over Debt Collection

CARL KARCHER: Faces "Bautista" Class Action in Calif. Ct.
CEMTREX INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Wage & Hour Class Suit
CHICAGO, IL: D.W.J. Petroleum Files Class Action v. city
COMMAND SECURITY: Aroche Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code

COMPLEX SAUCEY: Faces "Valencia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breaches
CR ENGLAND INC: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Order in "Roberts" Suit
CROSS TOWN: "Shutoy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CYNOSURE INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Hologic Merger
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Helping Hand Appeals Decision to 7th Circuit

DYNASTY LANDSCAPING: Pavoni Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Sgnilek" Suit Over SXL Merger
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ege" Class Suit
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
FRITO-LAY: Seeks Dismissal of Deceptive Label Class Action

FXCM INC: Faces "Zhao" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violations
GNC HOLDINGS: Deprived Membership Benefits, "Register" Suit Says
GOOGLE INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Suit Over Face Scans
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Defrauded Donors, "Murphy" Suit Says
HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Durand" Suit to 6th Circuit

ICAP PLC: Averts Investors' US Libor Class Action
INVENSENSE INC: Being Sold too Cheaply, "Nuzzo" Suit Claims
INVUITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in California
KEYBANK NA: Faces "Stolarick" Suit Alleging Violations of DCPA
KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Sorento Engine Failure

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISE: Must Defend Against Securities Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Landlords File Class Suit Over Rental Ordinance
M-I LLC: $7MM Settlement of "Syed" Case Has Preliminary Approval
MATTHEW BENDER: Himmelstein Firm Sues Over Tanbook Omissions
MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Danelian" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages

MIDATLANTIC FLOORING: Seeks Review of Decision in "Barton" Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Roshko" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over High Interest Rate Certified
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: June Trial Scheduled in Jail Class Action
MOLYCORP INC: May 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Elderly Homeowners Sue Over Excessive Fees
NATURE'S BEST: Faces "Wise" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
NESTLE USA: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Marketing of Frozen Meals
NEWARK, NJ: Newark Cab Assoc. Appeals Decision to Third Circuit
NIKE INC: "Taylor" Suit Over Outlet Store Prices Dismissed

NIKE RETAIL: Requires Employees to Wear Nike Clothing, Suit Says
NORTH STAR: Faces "Valencia" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
OLD DOMINION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sanders" Suit
PALM BEACH FERRARI: Faces Class Action Over Odometers
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Breached Duty to Reimburse, MSP Suit Says

PUDA COAL: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
QUALCOMM INC: Ervin Sues Over Modem Chipset Market Monopoly
RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Phone Calls
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over FLSA Violations
REVCLAIMS LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Hargett" Suit to Eighth Circuit

SALOV NORTH: May 30 Filippo Berio Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Increase of Insulin Benchmark Prices
SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alcohol-Monitoring Systems Defect
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Ruling in "Mojica" Suit to 9th Cir.
SEXY HAIR: Shampoo Not Sulfate-Free, "Crane" Class Suit Says

SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinett" Class Suit
ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Hargett" Suit
STARKEY HEARING: Faces "Melcher" Suit Under FLSA, Minn. Labor Law
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Walsh" Securities Class Suit
STUDY.COM LLC: Faces "Lopez" Class Action Over Auto Renewal

TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Certified 2 Classes in Lidoderm Case
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Mensie" Alleges Breach of "Gap" Protection Deal
U.S. POSTAL: "Slavin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit by Disabled War Translators
UNITED STATES: U.S. Marshals Service Class Action Closer to Trial

UPTAIN GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cholly" Class Suit
VCA INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Moran" Suit Says
WAL-MART STORES: Shareholder Suit Over Bribes in Mexico Dismissed
WINTON TRANSPORTATION: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Neff" Suit Over Leak of Personal Information


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Liability Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate OK'd to Amend Civil Rights Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Whistleblower Suit Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Narrows Utica's Diversity Suit vs. FFIC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Wrongful Death Claim Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Setting Aside Verdict in "Juni" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Seek Up to $41MM From Halliburton Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Provides Update on "Bell"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Reconvenes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambodian Labor Ministry to Examine Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Group Exploring Litigation Scandals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Danger to Public from Asbestos in Pipes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redditch Schools Still Have Toxic Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tippers Jailed After Dumping Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Being Handled by Unskilled Workers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Old Maintenance Shop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in UK Schools A Serious Problem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Residents Want Health Checks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forced Couple Out of Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Keeps Tenants Away

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dump Spilling Toxic Asbestos on to Bray Beach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Asbestos-related Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects Speculative Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim's Family Settle Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Stadium Bleachers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Company Sued Over Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Faces Asbestosis Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,700 Cases at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCC Has $439MM Litigation Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Still Faces Non-PCC Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 680 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 64,400 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $316MM at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Resolved 122,700 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $156MM Liability at Dec31




                            *********


A.C. MOORE: Faces "Rossmeisl" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY ROSSMEISL AND GUY LAUTURE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against A.C. MOORE ARTS &
CRAFTS, INC., Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-10219 (D. Mass., February 8,
2017), alleges that Defendant's policy of uniformly classifying
Assistant General Managers as exempt from federal and state
overtime provisions violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A.C. MOORE ARTS & CRAFTS, INC. -- http://www.acmoore.com/--
operates arts and crafts superstores throughout the Eastern United
States.

Plaintiff worked for A.C. Moore as an AGM in its Hyannis,
Massachusetts store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hillary Schwab, Esq.
     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     FAIR WORK, P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 607-3260
     Fax: (617) 488-2261

        - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
     Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (212) 977-4005

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831


ALABAMA: Faces "Schultz" Class Action Over Cash Bond Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Alabama unconstitutionally imprisons defendants who are poor to
pay cash bonds, four men claim in a federal class action in
Anniston, Ala.

The case is captioned, RAY CHARLES SCHULTZ, DAVON TRESHAWN BEEBE,
TYRONE DAISHAWN BEEBE and JAMES HUGO STERLING, Individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated defendants, PLAINTIFF(s),
v. STATE OF ALABAMA, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:17-cv-00270-HGD (N.D.
Ala., February 21, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Melvin Hasting
     Attorney at Law
     407 2nd Ave., SW
     PO Box 517
     Cullman, AL 35056-0517
     Tel: 256-736-2230


ALIZE II: "Salgado" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN SALGADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against ALIZE II CORP. d/b/a CARIDAD &
LOUIE'S RESTAURANT, MERCEDES GUZMAN, and RENATO RIOS, Defendants,
Case No. 7:17-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Westchester County,
New York as a dishwasher and cleaner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
QSRweb reports that a data breach at Arby's locations nationwide
last fall has triggered a class action lawsuit on behalf of
"financial institutions" that "suffered damages as a result,"
according to a press release from the Scott+Scott Attorney at Law
firm.

The firm said hackers last October used malware on the chain's POS
system in a breach that lasted through at least this past January.
Arby's leadership learned of the breach when an "industry partner"
notified the company, states the release.

Arby's publicly released information on the breach on Feb.16.  The
law firm alleges hackers exploited vulnerabilities in the POS
system, allowing them to steal data from customers' credit and
data cards, including names, numbers, expiration dates, service
and verification codes.

Scott+Scott filed its class action, First Choice Federal Credit
Union v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., in the Northern District
of Georgia.  In the complaint, the firm alleges Arby's "inadequate
data security" and measures taken by the chain to protect data
were insufficient, allowing malware to go undetected.

The suit states the financial institutions involved "have been
forced to reissue potentially millions of credit and debit cards .
. . which costs several dollars per card (and) imposes substantial
costs on such financial institutions, who also incur many
administrative expenses and overhead charges dealing with
monitoring and preventing fraud."  Likewise, the institutions
involved must also pay back fraudulent charges, while losing
interest and transaction fees, according to the release.


ARCTIC CAT: LR Trust Files Securities Suit Over Textron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
LR TRUST, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ARCTIC CAT INC., CHRISTOPHER T. METZ, KENNETH J.
ROERING, JOSEPH F. PUISHYS, KIM A. BRINK, TONY J. CHRISTIANSON,
ANDREW S. DUFF and SUSAN E. LESTER, Defendants, CASE No. 0:17-cv-
00426 (D. Minn., February 8, 2017), alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act in relation to the Company's merger
with Textron Inc.

According to the suit, the Recommendation Statement, which
recommends that Arctic Cat stockholders tender their shares in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Arctic Cat
management's projections, utilized by the Company's financial
advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated in its financial
analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Baird in
connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii)
the background and sale process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction.

Arctic Cat Inc. designs, engineers and manufactures all-terrain
vehicles, side-by-sides and snowmobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & IZEK
     140 Bassett Creek Business Center
     901 North Third Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 335-3700
     E-mail: daltmanlaw@comcast.net

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


AVMED INC: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE STONE, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective Action;
Plaintiff, v. AVMED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-CEH-
TBM (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was
routinely denied overtime compensation even though she worked at
least 10 hours of overtime every week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

AvMed, Inc., doing business as AvMed Health Plans, Inc., provides
health coverage solutions to individuals, families, and businesses
in Florida.  The Plaintiff was employed as sales representative.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
     MITCHELL L. FELDMAN, ESQ., P.A.
     18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563
     Tampa, FL 33548
     Phone: (813) 639-9366
     Fax: (813) 639-9376
     Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


BANK OF AMERICA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hughes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Phillip Francis Hughes and Joanne Hafter filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Phillip
Francis Hughes v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 7:15-cv-05083-MGL,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Spartanburg.

The nature of suit is stated as banks and banking.

The appellate case is captioned as Phillip Francis Hughes v. Bank
of America NA, Case No. 17-1202, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Case Initial forms are due within 14 days;

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on March 27, 2017; and

   -- Response Brief is due on April 25, 2017.

Plaintiffs-Appellants PHILLIP FRANCIS LUKE HUGHES, on behalf of
Jane K. Hughes, and all others similarly situated, and JOANNE
HAFTER, and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brad Davis Hewett, Esq.
          David Michael Kelly, Esq.
          MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP, LLC
          P. O. Box 8113
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 726-0123
          Toll Free: (866) 692-0123
          Facsimile: (803) 252-7145
          E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com
                  mkelly@mklawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jamie Nicole Smith, Esq.
          PTA-FLA, INC.
          P. O. Box 8839
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 726-0123
          Facsimile: (803) 252-7145
          E-mail: jsmith@mklawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is
represented by:

          Robert Ashley Muckenfuss, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          201 North Tyron Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2052
          Facsimile: (704) 343-2300
          E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com


BLUE SHIELD: Smith Seeks Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shannon Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of California Life &
Health Insurance Company, Case No. 8:16-cv-00108-CJC-KES, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 14,
2017, Barrett Young, Esq., of King & Spalding, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on January 13, 2017, the District Court
granted Blue Shield of California's motion for summary judgment in
the case on whether the insurer violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff -- Shannon Smith -- received an automated, pre-
recorded call from Blue Shield of California, her health insurer.
The message alerted Ms. Smith that the insurer had mailed her
information about her health insurance and that it was time to
review her health insurance options.  Ms. Smith alleged that the
call violated the TCPA and the FCC regulations because (1) the
call constituted telemarketing, and (2) Blue Shield of California
had not obtained Ms. Smith's express written consent to make the
call.  The insurer argued that its call was lawful because (1) the
call did not constitute telemarketing, and (2) the prior express
-- though unwritten -- consent it had obtained from Ms. Smith was
sufficient for its non-telemarketing call.

The Court determined that the call was purely informational and
did not constitute telemarketing.

The appellate case is captioned as Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of
California Life & Health Insurance Company, Case No. 17-55191, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 15, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Shannon Smith's opening brief is due on July 24,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance
      Company's answering brief is due on August 22, 2017; and

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

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

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623-4230
          E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP HANNINK & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          E-mail: Paul.Dostart@sdlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, is represented by:

          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq.
          Fred R. Puglisi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-2259
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  valter@sheppardmullin.com
                  fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com


BOW TRUSS: Former Employees File Wage-Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Gossett, writing for Chicagoist, reports that the strange
Bow Truss saga took another major turn on Feb. 27 as ten former
employees announced that they have filed a class-action wage-theft
lawsuit against the coffee chain.  The lawsuit targets the company
and its management, including embattled founder Phil Tadros.

Alongside aldermen and other prominent local political figures,
the employees announced the suit in front of a now-closed Bow
Truss location on Feb. 27.  They allege that Tadros' mishandling
of the business led to regular bounced checks, and the suit seeks
some $50,000 in damages.

Ten Bow Truss locations closed in January after employees refused
to open the stores in protest of unpaid wages. Only the Loop and
River North locations are currently operational.

State Sen. Daniel Bliss, Ald. Scott Waguespack and Ald. Ricardo
Munoz joined former employees to help make public the legal action
and stand in unison against alleged acts of wage theft.
Founder Phil Tadros told Chicagoist by email that the company has
attempted to pay its outstanding late debts to employees.  He said
he believes the two ex-workers who spoke at the press conference -
- Ben Creech and Trumaine Hardy -- were paid the money they were
owed.  Mr. Tadros also claimed that Creech and Hardy were not
involved in the walkout and were either dismissed or left in
September and August, respectively.

"We do not run or hide from our bills," Mr. Tadros said.
The founder claimed in a followup email that all 10 complainants
in the lawsuit "were paid in full."
Mr. Tadros also said he suspects that Marcus Lemonis is at least
partially behind the legal claim and worked to prompt the January
walkout. (The plaintiff camp reportedly denies the claim.) Tadros
filed suit against Mr. Lemonis (also host of The Profit), seeking
$26 million in damages, after Mr. Lemonis backed out of a deal to
acquire the financially beleaguered company.

SEIU Local 1, which represents service employees, came out in
support of the lawsuit on Feb. 27.


CACH OF NEW JERSEY: Faces "Shukla" Suit Over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Cach of New Jersey and
Square Two Financial Corp. try to collect debts by misrepresenting
themselves as law firms, one debtor claims in a class action in
New Brunswick, N.J.

The case is captioned, Alexander Shukla, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Cach of
New Jersey, LLC, Cach LLC, and Square Two Financial Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 997-17, Superior Court of New Jersey,
February 13, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     FLITTER MILZ PC
     Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
     Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
     525 Rt, 73 South, Suite 200
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Tel: 856-396-0600

          - and -

     THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
     David C. Ricci, Esq.
     51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
     Short Hills, NJ 07078
     Tel: 973-218-2627


CARL KARCHER: Faces "Bautista" Class Action in Calif. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
Luis Bautista, Margarita Guerrero, and those similarly situated;
Plaintiffs, v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, LLC, Carl's Jr.
Restaurants, LLC, Defendants, Case No. BC 649777 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges that CKE has
colluded to suppress the wages of the restaurant-based managers,
from shift leader up, who work at Carl's Jr. restaurants in Los
Angeles and around the world. CKE effects this scheme, allegedly,
through a "no hire" agreement that expressly prohibits franchisees
from "employ[ing] or seek[ing] to employ" any of the restaurant-
based managers who work for other franchisees or for CKE directly.
The case raises claims of violation of California Cartright Act,
California Business and Professional Code, unfair competition
under the California Business and Professional Code, and use of
illegal covenants not to compete.

CKE owns, operates, and franchises fast-food restaurant brands,
including Carl's Jr., Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito.
Plaintiff Luis Bautista is a "shift leader" employed by a Carl's
Jr. franchisee in Los Angeles County, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon Tostrud, Esq.
     TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 278-2600
     Fax: (310) 278-2640
     E-mail: jtostmd@tostrudlaw.com

        - and -

     Towards Justice, Esq.
     Nina Disalvo, Esq.
     Alexander Hood, Esq.
     David Seligman, Esq.
     1535 High Street, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80218
     Phone: (970) 403-5694

        - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960


CEMTREX INC: April 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Cemtrex, Inc. ("Cemtrex" or the
"Company") in the United States District Court for Eastern
District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased Cemtrex stock on the open market from December 7, 2016
through February 21, 2017 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over $1 million has
been paid to notorious stock promoters since late 2015; (2) the
entity paying for the stock promotion was owned by Defendant Aron
Govil and based out of Cemtrex's corporate headquarters; (3)
senior executives engaged in undisclosed insider selling; (4) the
Company retained a foreign accounting firm with a history of
fraudulent endeavors to conduct its financial audits; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Cemtrex's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 25, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Wage & Hour Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that The Cheesecake Factory faces
class action in San Diego by prep cooks or cooks who say the
restaurant chain failed to pay overtime or to provide meal and
rest breaks, among other violations of California labor law,
"while openly degrading them based upon their ethnicity, national
origin and/or race."

The case is captioned, NORMA RODRIGUEZ, and ANTELMA MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 -- 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2017-00006571, San Diego County Superior Court, February 22,
2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Sean D. Stephens, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SEAN D. STEPHENS
     1059 10TH Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619)  838-5211
     Fax: (619) 239-0216

          - and -

     Anthony P. Bianes, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P. BIANES
     401 West A Street, Suite 2350
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 232-4400


CHICAGO, IL: D.W.J. Petroleum Files Class Action v. city
---------------------------------------------------------
D.W.J. PETROLEUM, INC., on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Chicago, an Illinois
Municipal Corporation and Jaclynn, Inc. d/b/a Gilio Landscape
Contractors, an Illinois domestic corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2017 CH-01947 (Ill. Circ., Cook County, February 8, 2017), was
filed on behalf of all Minority-Owned Business Enterprises and
Woman-Owned Business Enterprises who participated in any way in
contracts with the City of Chicago as a subcontractor where
Special Conditions were included as part of the contract that
allegedly illegally shifted the burden of filing an arbitration
demand from the contractor, the City of Chicago.

Defendant the City of Chicago is an Illinois Municipal
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ayres Law Offices, Ltd.
     30 N. LaSalle, Ste. 3200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 224-8390
     E-mail: docket@AyresLawLtd.com


COMMAND SECURITY: Aroche Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR AROCHE, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. COMMAND SECURITY
CORPORATION, a New York corporation; AVIATION SAFEGUARDS, an
unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC650351 (Cal Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks penalties pursuant
to the Labor Code, and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA) in connection with Defendants' Labor Code violations.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class it seeks to
represent, seeks relief against Defendants for (1) failure to pay
all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a
result of Defendants' policy of improperly paying its non-exempt
hourly employees; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation; (3) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees; and (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages. Plaintiff further seeks
equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and
injunctive relief, and relief under Business and Professions Code
for unfair business practices.

Command Security provides contract security and related services
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  awilson@mahoney-law.net


COMPLEX SAUCEY: Faces "Valencia" Suit Alleging Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPLEX SAUCEY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
BC 649838 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017),
alleges misclassification of drivers, failure to reimburse work-
related expenditures in violation of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, failure to keep accurate employment records, and
unlawful business practices.

Purported plaintiff and members of the putative class are
individuals who have been hired by Defendant Saucey, Inc. as
independent contractor-drivers to deliver alcohol to Saucey's
customers throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617)994-5800
     Fax: (617) 994-5801
     E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

        - and -

     Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
     LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     466 Geary St., Suite 201
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Phone: (415)630-2651
     Fax: (617) 995-5801
     E-mail: mcarlson@11rlaw.com


CR ENGLAND INC: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of Order in "Roberts" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants C.R. England, Inc., and Opportunity Leasing, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
ROBERTS, et al. V. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-
00302-RJS-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
- Salt Lake City.

The appellate case is captioned as C.R. England, Inc., et al. v.
Roberts, et al., Case No. 17-600, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2017, C.R. England said it plans to appeal a federal judge's class
certification of the case, a ruling that could result in thousands
of owner-operators joining the two independent contractors in the
2012 lawsuit.

Judge Robert J. Shelby for the District of Utah gave permission on
January 31 to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class action
lawsuit and gave plaintiffs 30 days to prepare a final plan for
notice to class members.

T.J. England, the corporation's chief legal officer, said he was
"deeply disappointed" by the ruling. "We vigorously dispute the
allegations made in this case and disagree with the court's
decision to certify a class," the attorney said. "We intend to
immediately appeal the decision and to continue to fight these
unfounded claims as long as is necessary."

The Plaintiffs allege fraud and other statutory claims against the
truckload carrier and its related company, Horizon Truck Sales and
Leasing. The England family runs the company as well as
Opportunity Leasing, Inc. which operates under the name Horizon
Truck Sales and Leasing. Horizon's primarily purpose is to lease
trucks to drivers who work as independent contractors affiliated
with England.

Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay say the companies
recruit students to CRE's driver training schools with promises
that they can become a company driver or enjoy strong earnings as
an independent contractor.

Petitioners-Defendants C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation, and
OPPORTUNITY LEASING, INC., are represented by:

          David B. Dibble, Esq.
          James S. Jardine, Esq.
          Adam K. Richards, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          Facsimile: (801) 532-7543
          E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com
                  jjardine@rqn.com
                  arichards@rqn.com

Respondents-Plaintiffs CHARLES ROBERTS, an individual, and KENNETH
MCKAY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Aaron H. Aizenberg, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Glicksman, Esq.
          Stephen E. Kravit, Esq.
          Christopher J. Krawczyk, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Prinsen, Esq.
          KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK, S.C.
          825 North Jefferson Street, Suite 500
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-7100
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8135
          E-mail: aha@kravitlaw.com
                  bjg@kravitlaw.com
                  kravit@kravitlaw.com
                  cjk@kravitlaw.com
                  brp@kravitlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
          1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 233-7100
          Toll Free: (855) 372-6529
          Facsimile: (415) 233-7101
          E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com

               - and -

          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
          Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
          E-mail: jharper@aklawfirm.com
                  tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com
                  hsneddon@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

               Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
               WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA
               90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
               P. Box 10
               Woodbridge, NJ 07095
               Telephone: (732) 636-8000
               Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
               E-mail: mmcguckin@wilentz.com


CROSS TOWN: "Shutoy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
VADIM SHUTOY, DMITRIY SHPIGEL, ALEKSANDR KOZUBOV, MARK KHAIT, IGOR
KOTLYARSKIY, VASILIY BIGUN, LIOUBOMIR BAIDALO, and NAZAR ZUBKIV,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CROSS TOWN TRANSPORTATION, INC. and IGOR
GORODETSKIY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00800 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 13, 2017), seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, statutory penalties, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Although Plaintiffs and others similarly situated often worked as
many as seventy hours or more per workweek, Defendants failed to
pay them overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess 40 hours
in a workweek at one and one-half times the regular rate.

The Defendants' unlawful practices are in violation of the FLSA
and NYLL and applicable regulations.

Defendant Igor Gorodentskiy is the owner, chairman/chief executive
officer, manager and/or operator of Defendant Cross Town
Transportation, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, Suite #10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799 9111
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


CYNOSURE INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Hologic Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Faulkner, writing for MassDevice, reports that Cynosure Inc.
shareholders filed a class action lawsuit to halt the company's
proposed $1.44 billion sale to Hologic, alleging that Cynosure's
regulatory filing recommending the transaction is missing crucial
information about the company's financial projections and the
process that led up to the deal.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts,
suggested that the filing is misleading and that shareholders
don't have enough information to ensure the proposed transaction
is a good deal.

"Cynosure stockholders are being asked to make a decision whether
to tender their shares in connection with the Offer without all
material information at their disposal," according to the
complaint.

In the months leading up to the deal, Leerink Partners acted as
financial advisor for Cynosure as they sought to reach a deal with
number of companies.  According to court documents, 1 of those
companies entered a confidentiality agreement with Cynosure in May
last year.

In November, Cynosure met with Hologic to discuss "potential
future opportunities between the 2 companies" and by late January
this year, Hologic was negotiating a takeover price, in
competition with 2 other unnamed companies, according to the
complaint.

Finally, in mid-February this year, Hologic and Cynosure inked a
deal at $66 per share -- an enterprise value of $1.44 billion. The
lawsuit suggests that there is confusion over a potential
confidentiality agreement signed between Cynosure and a 3rd
company Feb. 10.

The purported class action also alleges that "the defendants filed
a materially incomplete and misleading Recommendation Statement
with the SEC and disseminated it to Cynosure's stockholders."

According to court documents, the regulatory filing omitted or
misled investors about Cynosure's financial projections, the data
underlying the financial valuation analyses that supported
Leerink's fairness opinion and the background process that led to
the proposed transaction.

Shareholders are asking the court to halt the transaction and
award the plaintiffs "the costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts'
fees."


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Helping Hand Appeals Decision to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.
v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10127, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief arising out of
unsolicited advertisements sent by fax.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants sent advertisements by fax to promote catered
seminars about "wellness" in the workplace, including the fax for
a "Lunch N Learn" seminar."  The Plaintiff contends that the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits a person from
sending an advertisement by fax without the recipient's prior
express invitation or permission.

Helping Hand Caregivers Ltd. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Lake County, Illinois.

Darden Restaurants, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Orange County, Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.
v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1282, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the
Appellant's brief is due on or before March 22, 2017, for Helping
Hand Caregivers, Ltd.

Plaintiff-Appellant HELPING HAND CAREGIVERS, LTD., an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com

Defendant-Appellee DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., a Florida
corporation, is represented by:

          Jason P. Stiehl, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Telephone: (312) 460-5568
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: jstiehl@seyfarth.com


DYNASTY LANDSCAPING: Pavoni Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO PAVONI and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. DYNASTY LANDSCAPING SERVICE, INC. d/b/a DYNASTY TREE SERVICE
f/k/a ECONOMIC TREE SERVICE CORP. AND F/K/A ECONOMIC TREE TRIMMING
CORP. AND JOSE MOLINA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20577-CMA
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for
willful violations of overtime and minimum wages under the laws of
the United States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was paid on a daily rate. During approximately the
first 18 weeks of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
paid a daily rate of $150 a day. Thereafter, Plaintiff's daily
rate was decreased to $100 a day for approximately 4 weeks and
thereafter decreased to $80 a day for the last 5 weeks of his
employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff was never paid his
overtime wages when he worked in excess of 40 hours a week and is
therefore seeking the additional halftime overtime rate for each
overtime hour worked. The Defendants were required to pay
Plaintiff overtimes wages. Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages
at a rate of time and one half, when he worked more than 40 hours
per week.

Dynasty provides lawn service including, mowing, edging, trimming,
and mulching services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone (305) 773 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Sgnilek" Suit Over SXL Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
LES SGNILEK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.,
ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS GP, L.P, ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS,
L.L.C., ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., KELCY L. WARREN, TED
COLLINS, JR., MICHAEL K. GRIMM, MARSHALL S. McCREA, JAMES R.
PERRY, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, DAVID K. SKIDMORE, SUNOCO LOGISTICS
PARTNERS L.P., SUNOCO PARTNERS LLC, and ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY,
L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00141-UNA (D. Del., February 8,
2017), alleges that the Registration Statement relating to the
merger of ETP with SXL Acquisition Sub LP, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P (SXL) omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the
Partnership's officers and directors.  As such, the Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

The consideration offered to ETP unitholders was worth
approximately $39.29 as of market close on November 18, 2016.

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P. is a master limited partnership
that owns and operates a large and diversified portfolio of energy
assets.

Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P is a master limited partnership that
owns and operates a logistics business consisting of a portfolio
of complementary crude oil, refined products, and natural gas
liquids pipeline, terminalling and acquisition and marketing
assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
     BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA
     921 N. Orange St.
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 655-9677
     E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

        - and -

     Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
     Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
     Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 935-7400
     Fax: (212) 753-3630


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ege" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Abdirizaq Ege, Abdirahim Farah and Abdulkadir Hassan
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled
Abdirizaq Ege, et al. v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01167-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the King County Superior Court
(assigned Case No. 15-00002-18232-3-SEA).  The case was later
removed to the District Court.  The Plaintiffs assert labor-
related claims.

Express Messenger is a shipping and delivery service company
located in Chandler, Arizona.

The appellate case is captioned as Abdirizaq Ege, et al. v.
Express Messenger Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 17-35123, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Abdirizaq Ege, Abdirahim Farah and Abdulkadir
      Hassan's opening brief is due on May 22, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does 1 through 100 and Express Messenger Systems
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on June 19, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ABDIRIZAQ EGE, ABDIRAHIM FARAH, and
ABDULKADIR HASSAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, are represented by:

          Liana Carter, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Liana.Carter@capstonelawyers.com
                  glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com
                  andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC, a Delaware
corporation, DBA Ontrac, is represented by:

          Ryan P. Hammond, Esq.
          Joanna M. Silverstein, Esq.
          Kellie Anne Tabor, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101-3122
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          E-mail: rhammond@littler.com
                  jsilverstein@littler.com
                  ktabor@littler.com


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Feb. 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina on behalf of holders of
FairPoint Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") (NASDAQ:FRP) common
stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of FairPoint by
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary (collectively, "Consolidated Communications") announced
on December 5, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
FairPoint, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Consolidated
Communications, is captioned Lentine v. FairPoint Communications,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv 00051-FDW-DCK (D.N.C.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/fairpoint-communications-
inc-frp/.

On December 3, 2016, FairPoint entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Consolidated
Communications.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, FairPoint
shareholders will receive 0.7300 shares of Consolidated
Communications stock per share of FairPoint common stock (the
"Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on January 26, 2017,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Complaint asserts that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that FairPoint stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to FairPoint's financial projections, the opinions and
analyses of FairPoint's financial advisor, and the background of
the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of FairPoint
common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 28, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and
corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in
states and federal courts throughout the United States.


FRITO-LAY: Seeks Dismissal of Deceptive Label Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that snack food giant Frito-Lay urged a California federal
judge on Feb. 24 to grant its renewed request for a quick win in a
proposed class action over allegedly misleading health claims on
certain products, saying the consumers leading the suit haven't
shown they relied on or were harmed by the challenged label
statements.

Markus Wilson and Doug Campen can't establish that they decided to
purchase several Frito-Lay North America Inc. products based on
statements like "0 grams Trans Fat" and "Made With All Natural
Ingredients," the company argued, saying the testimony offered by
the consumers directly refuted the suit's allegations.

"The lawyer-driven nature of this litigation that plaintiffs
described at their depositions, while not dispositive, is
instructive," Frito-Lay said.  "It explains how the case arrived
at this point -- having gone through multiple rounds of motions to
dismiss and over a year's worth of discovery -- with named
plaintiffs who lack any evidence to support the theories asserted
in the [second amended complaint], and whose deposition testimony
actually contradicts those claims."

According to Frito-Lay, the consumers filed the proposed class
action in March 2012 after being approached by plaintiffs'
counsel, who have filed dozens of similar cases in this court, and
by a plaintiff in one of the cases.

Their May 2013 second amended complaint alleged that more than 90
Frito-Lay products such as Cheetos Puffs, Lay's Classic Potato
Chips and Kettle Cooked BBQ Potato Chips were misbranded,
including statements that duped buyers into thinking they were
healthy options.

The consumers alleged that the "0 grams Trans Fat" statement on
certain items violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations because buyers weren't referred to the back panel for
information about total fat in the snacks, according to court
filings.

Mr. Campen additionally said he was deceived by a "Made With All
Natural Ingredients" statement that appeared several years ago on
two products because the items actually contained artificial and
synthetic ingredients, court filings said.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti trimmed the action later that
year, holding, among other things, in October 2013 that claims
based on products the plaintiffs didn't buy should be dismissed,
leaving only a handful of items.

The consumers moved for class certification in March 2015, and two
weeks later, Frito-Lay asked for summary judgment.  The requests
were stayed, however, in July 2015 pending the Ninth Circuit's
decisions in two food-labeling cases, Jones v. ConAgra Foods Inc.
and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC, with Judge Conti noting
that the former is more relevant to the class certification bid
and the latter more applicable to the summary judgment request.

The Ninth Circuit has since issued its decision in Brazil, but
Jones is still pending, having been stayed itself while the U.S.
Supreme Court reaches its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker,
according to court filings.

Noting that the judge had said Jones is most relevant to the class
certification request, Frito-Lay asked to partially lift the stay
in December so that the court could rule on its summary judgment
request.

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, to whom the matter had been
reassigned, agreed on Feb. 10, leading to Frito-Lay's Feb. 24
amended summary judgment request.

The company argued that the consumers have had every opportunity
to support their claims with affirmative evidence, but have
failed.  For one, neither consumer is entitled to injunctive
relief because the challenged statements were removed from the
products more than three years ago, and the company has no plans
to reintroduce them, Frito-Lay argued.

Then there are the issues with Mr. Campen's testimony, Frito-Lay
said. He testified that he is only challenging the all-natural
ingredients claims on two products but said he didn't buy the
items because of the challenged statements, instead saying he
purchased them because of their taste, contradicting the suit's
allegations, according to Frito-Lay.

Wilson's testimony also dooms his challenge to the trans fat claim
on Lay's Classic Potato Chips, showing that he didn't rely on the
statement when buying the product, Frito-Lay contended. According
to the company, he made several statements that contradicted the
complaint, including that he never believed the chips were healthy
and would make only positive contributions to his diet.

The challenges to the trans fat claim also don't hold up because
they are rooted in a misreading of FDA labeling regulations, the
company argued, saying the agency has "explicitly and repeatedly"
allowed these statements.

In any case, all of the claims fail because Wilson and Campen
didn't meet their requirement to show that a significant portion
of reasonable consumers are likely to be misled by the challenged
statements, the company contended.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return request
for comment on Feb. 27.

The consumers are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt
Associates and David McMullan Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
-- of Don Barrett PA.

Frito-Lay is represented by Andrew S. Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Geoffrey M. Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- and Jason R. Meltzer of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

The case is Wilson, et al. v. Frito-Lay North America Inc., et
al., number 3:12-cv-01586, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


FXCM INC: Faces "Zhao" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
YING ZHAO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC., DROR NIV, and ROBERT N.
LANDE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00955 (S.D.N.Y., February 8,
2017), alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) between September 4, 2009
through at least 2014, FXCM's U.S. subsidiary engaged in false and
misleading solicitations of its foreign exchange customers by
concealing its relationship with its most important market maker
and by misrepresenting that its "No Dealing Desk" platform had no
inherent conflicts of interest with the Company's customers; and
(ii) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made false statements to the National
Futures Association regarding the Company's relationship with the
market maker.

FXCM is an agency that provides online foreign exchange (FX)
trading and related services to retail and institutional
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Deprived Membership Benefits, "Register" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that GNC unilaterally
discontinued its Gold Card program in December 2016, depriving
millions of their right to membership benefits for which they paid
$15 a year, consumers claim in a federal class action in Newark,
N.J.

The case is captioned, BRANDON REGISTER, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01320 (D.N.J., February 24,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     James C. Shah, Esq.
     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     475 White Horse Pike
     Collingswood, NJ 08107
     Telephone: (856) 858-1770
     Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
     Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com
            nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Rivera" Suit Over Face Scans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Illinois refused to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit claiming Google illegally collects face geometry scans
from photographs taken on its smartphones without users'
knowledge.

Lead plaintiff Lindabeth Rivera alleges a photo taken of her on a
Google Android device was automatically uploaded to the company's
cloud-based service, Google Photos, where her facial features were
scanned to create a unique face template without her consent.

Co-plaintiff Joseph Weiss says Google used photographs from his
Android device to "unlawfully create a face scan."

On behalf of a proposed class, Rivera and Weiss accuse the company
of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
because the photos were taken by Google devices in the Prairie
State.

"Between around March 2015 and March 2016, 'approximately eleven'
photographs of Lindabeth Rivera were taken in Illinois by a Google
Photos user on a Google Droid device," according to court records.
"As soon as the photographs of Rivera were taken, the Droid
automatically uploaded them to the cloud-based Google Photos
service."

Rivera claims Google then scanned the uploaded photos, zeroing in
on her facial features to create a "template" to map and record
her unique facial measurements.

Weiss alleges that between 2013 and 2016, about 21 photos he took
of himself on his Android device in Illinois were also
automatically uploaded and scanned with the same custom face
template technology.

Rivera and Weiss both claim their face templates were then used by
Google to find and group together other photos of them.

Google, without permission, allegedly used the templates to
recognize their unique characteristics, including gender, race,
age and location.

Rivera and Weiss claim the face templates created by Google are
"biometric identifiers" that cannot be collected and stored
without permission under the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The class-action complaint also alleges Google failed to publish a
policy describing how long it stores biometric data or how it
discards it, which is required by the Act.

Google filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming face-scan
measurements derived from a photograph are not biometric
identifiers and only in-person scans qualify as such.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang rejected the tech
giant's request.

"Indeed, because advances in technology are what drove the
Illinois legislature to enact the Privacy Act in the first place,
it is unlikely that the statute sought to limit the definition of
biometric identifier by limiting how the measurements are taken.
Who knows how iris scans, retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints,
and scans of faces and hands will be taken in the future?" Chang
wrote in his 30-page opinion.

Chang noted that Rivera and Weiss do not claim that the photos
themselves are biometric identifiers, only the face templates.

"The bottom line is that a 'biometric identifier' is not the
underlying medium itself, or a way of taking measurements, but
instead is a set of measurements of a specified physical component
(eye, finger, voice, hand, face) used to identify a person," the
judge wrote.

Google also argued that what Rivera and Weiss complain about
occurs online or in a cloud, not in Illinois, and applying the
Privacy Act to Google would be an extraterritorial application of
the statute, but Chang said it was too early to dismiss the case
on those grounds.

"The court concludes that the plaintiffs sufficiently allege facts
that would deem the asserted violations as having happened in
Illinois. But there is no bright-line rule for determining this,
so the parties will have the chance to develop more facts during
discovery," the judge wrote.


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Defrauded Donors, "Murphy" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that The Christian organization Gospel for Asia is a "vile scheme"
that defrauded donors of more than $450 million to build a
"reprehensible . . . multimillion-dollar personal empire," not to
help the poorest of the poor, as promised, a donor claims in a
federal class action in Fayetteville, Ark.

Dr. Garland Murphy III and his wife Phyllis claim that at the
behest of its leader, co-defendant K.P. Yohannan, Gospel for Asia
diverted hundreds of millions of donated dollars to profit-seeking
businesses, an expensive Texas headquarters, personal homes, and
an international sports team sponsorship.

Four other individual defendants in the RICO lawsuit include
Gospel officials and directors, including Yohannan's wife and son.

The Feb. 16 lawsuit minces no words. It begins: "Soliciting
charitable donations to benefit the poorest of the poor while
covertly diverting the money to a multimillion-dollar personal
empire is reprehensible; using a Christian organization as a front
to attract and exploit the goodwill and generosity of devout
Christians is a particularly vile scheme. But that is exactly what
K.P. Yohannan and the organization he controls -- Gospel for Asia,
Inc. -- have been getting away with for years."

The Murphys, of Bentonville, Arkansas, say that Gospel for Asia
raised more than $450 million in donations from the United States
alone from 2007 to 2013, much of which Yohannan redirected to his
personal empire.

"Despite repeated, explicit guarantees from GFA to donors, only a
fraction of the donated money supports the people and causes for
which it was donated," according to the 43-page complaint.

Though the defendants promise donors their money will be used only
for the specific projects they select, the complaint details three
specific instances in which, the class claims, of thousands of
U.S. donors were defrauded, including through Gospel's most
popular donor option, the "Bridge of Hope" program.

This program promises to provide a child in India with "Jesus"
love, a quality education, a daily meal and medical care, for a
$35 monthly pledge.

But the actual cost to support a child in "Bridge of Hope" was
less than $8.20 per month, according to the complaint. It claims
that in 2013, Gospel received more than $15 million in donations
designated for "Bridge of Hope," but spent only $6.3 million on
child welfare.

It also misdirected money designated for "Jesus Wells," a program
to provide clean water and to help orphans and widows, the class
claims.

"Despite GFA's explicit representations that it would spend in the
field 100 percent of every dollar donors designated for the field,
GFA spent only $14.9 million of $118.6 million on actual relief
efforts, instead spending far more on salaries and overhead,"
according to the complaint.

The Murphys call Yohannan, Gospel's founder, "central and
principal actor in making the misrepresentations."

Based Wills Point, Texas, defendants Gospel for Asia and Gospel
for Asia-International also has offices in the United Kingdom,
Germany, South Africa, Australia, India, South Korea, Finland, New
Zealand, and Canada.

The Texas headquarters is a 350-acre compound with a multimillion-
dollar chapel and more than 80 single-family homes for members.
The IRS recognizes Gospel as both a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and a
religious order.

Gospel for Asia did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Its website says it is committed to financial integrity and "to
good stewardship of the funds entrusted to us by our friends and
donors."

"When a donor sends in the monthly support for their missionary,
nothing is deducted for administrative purposes -- 100 percent is
sent directly to the mission field for its intended purpose,"
according to the website's financial integrity section.

The organization says it subjects itself to annual, independent
financial audits.

But the Murphys say in the lawsuit that the Evangelical Council
for Financial Accountable, a private oversight body that reviews
finances of Christian organizations that solicit charitable
donations, decertified Gospel for Asia in September 2015 after
investigating its finances.

"All told, ECFA found that GFA violated five of the accountability
group's seven core standards," Christianity Today reported in
October 2015. "As a result, the ECFA board voted on October 2 to
cut ties with GFA. The board said its decision is final."

Gospel for Asia told Christianity Today it "accepts the decision
with regret and sadness."

The Murphys seek class certification, restitution, an injunction
and punitive damages for racketeering conspiracy, fraud, deceptive
trade and unjust enrichment.

Their lead Woodson Bassett III, of Fayetteville, is assisted by
the Stanley Law Group and Mills and Williams, both of Dallas.

The case is captioned, GARLAND D. MURPHY, III, M.D., and PHYLLIS
MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFFS, v. GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC., GOSPEL FOR ASIA-
INTERNATIONAL, K.P. YOHANNAN, GISELA PUNNOSE, DANIEL PUNNOSE,
DAVID CARROLL, and PAT EMERICK, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:17-cv-
05035-TLB (W.D. Ark., February 16, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class:

     Woodson W. Bassett III, Esq.
     James Graves
     BASSETT LAW FIRM LLP
     221 North College Avenue
     P.O. Box 3618
     Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
     Tel: 479.521.9996
     Fax: 479.521.9600
     E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com
             jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
     Martin Woodward, Esq.
     STANLEY LAW GROUP
     6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
     Dallas, Texas 75206
     Tel: 214.443.4300
     Fax: 214.443.0358
     E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
             mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

          - and -

     Tom Mills, Esq.
     MILLS AND WILLIAMS, LLP
     5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 980
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Tel: 214.265.9265
     Fax: 214.361.3167
     E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: Appeals Ruling in "Durand" Suit to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover
Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance
Pension Plan, Case No. 3:07-cv-00130, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jennifer A.
Durand, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance
and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the
Company's Cash Balance Plan at or about the time of her separation
from the company, claims that she and others similarly situated
did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in
computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the
accrued benefit in the calculation.  Ms. Durand alleges that the
Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated
participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw"
amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future
interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to
each participant's retirement age of 65.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: THE HANOVER INSURANCE
GROUP, INC., Case No. 17-5167, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Petitioners-Defendants THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., and
ALLMERICA FINANCIAL CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN are represented by:

          Alan Scott Gilbert, Esq.
          DENTONS
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: alan.gilbert@dentons.com

Respondents-Plaintiffs JENNIFER A. DURAND, On behalf of herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, WALTER J. WHARTON
and MICHAEL A. TEDESCO are represented by:

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM
          498 Seventh Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11215
          Telephone: (718) 788-1500
          Telecopier: (718) 788-1650
          E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com


ICAP PLC: Averts Investors' US Libor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Victor Golovtchenko, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
NEX Group, which is the company that was formed after ICAP plc
sold off its voice broking business, has been cleared of
wrongdoing in a class action case in the US.  The company
announced that the firm's subsidiaries ICAP and ICAP Europe
Limited have been dropped from the legislation.

A number of investors claimed that the firm adversely impacted
their trades by using a practice called 'spoofing' when the
interbank market was setting Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Eurobor)
rates.

The practice of 'spoofing' is widely viewed as a big problem in
algorithmic trading.  An algo can quickly create orders that
impact market prices without the sender having the intention of
execute any of the orders.

Back in November, British trader Navinder Sarao has admitted to
using the practice to manipulate market prices during the 2010
'flash crash' episode.  On the 6th of May, the trader used the
practice while trading the S&P 500 index futures.

Eurobor Ruling Coincides with JPY and USD Libor

The judge appointed on the case states that the various investors
who alleged manipulation of the Euribor did not submit enough
evidence against the firm.

According to the court's order, the complaint against ICAP fails
to allege that ICAP actually undertook action to spoof Euribor
submitters.  The document also states that the plaintiffs failed
to allege any United States connection to the alleged
communications.

The news is consistent with other cases pertaining to yen Libor
and US dollar Libor rate allegations that have shown no personal
jurisdiction over ICAP entities.

The liability for ICAP plc resided with NEX Group plc, as did that
of ICAP Europe Limited under the terms of the recently completed
transaction with Tullett Prebon.


INVENSENSE INC: Being Sold too Cheaply, "Nuzzo" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling InvenSense too cheaply through an unfair
process to TDK Corp., for $13 a share or $1.3 billion,
shareholders claim in a federal class action in San Jose.

The case is captioned, MARC NUZZO, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. INVENSENSE, INC., BEHROOZ
ABDI, AMIR FAINTUCH, USAMA FAYYAD, EMIKO HIGASHI, JON OLSON, AMIT
SHAH, ERIC STANG, YUNBEI YU, TDK CORPORATION, and TDK SENSOR
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00859 (N.D.
Cal., February 21, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 291-2420
     Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
     E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


INVUITY INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, on Feb. 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors in Invuity, Inc.
("Invuity" or the "Company") (IVTY) who purchased Invuity shares
between July 19, 2016 and November 3, 2016. The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and captioned Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-1005.

The complaint alleges Invuity issued false and misleading
statements about its operations and results.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Invuity
misrepresented its ability to sustain its average revenue per
account, which serves as a critical metric for the Company's
growth.  After the markets closed on November 3, 2016, Invuity
announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2016 and,
citing in part a decline in average revenue per account, the
Company lowered its guidance.  The price of Invuity stock fell
significantly following the news.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 28, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or by toll-free telephone at (888)
508-6832. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


KEYBANK NA: Faces "Stolarick" Suit Alleging Violations of DCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle E. Stolarick, for himself and others similarly situated (3200
Byberry Road, Hatboro, PA 19040) Plaintiff vs. Keycorp t/a
Keybank, N.A. (127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114) and
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A. (323 W. Lakeside Avenue,
Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113), Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00593-WB (E.D. Pa., February 8, 2017), alleges that Defendant used
and continues to use unfair and unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect debts based on false representations as to the
alleged debt. Specifically, placing mortgage accounts into
"nonperforming loans" and "flagging" these accounts, when, in
fact, these accounts are current.  The case alleges violations of
the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A. is in the business of
collecting debt for and on behalf of KeyBank N.A.  KeyBank is a
mortgage holder/servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
     Carol B. McCullough, Esq.
     MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC
     65 West Street Road, Suite A-105
     Warminster, PA 18974
     Phone: 215 957 6411
     Fax: 215 957 9140
     E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com


KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over Sorento Engine Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
James Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that Kia Motors
has tentatively settled a class action lawsuit that alleged a
crankshaft bolt could break, causing catastrophic engine failure.
Owners of 2003 through 2006 Kia Sorento SUVs who incurred damages
are eligible for up to $4,900 in reimbursement.

The alleged engine defect leads to a catastrophic chain of events
that starts with severe heat buildup, the release of debris, and
then leads to loss of steering control, engine failure, and the
potential for an accident, according to the class action lawsuit.

"Not only did Kia actively conceal the material fact that this
particular component is defectively designed (and requires costly
repairs to fix), but it also did not reveal that the existence of
this defect would diminish the intrinsic resale value of the
vehicle," plaintiffs alleged in the suit.

Plaintiffs alleged Kia has known about the Sorento engine defect
for years, as evidenced by numerous online complaints, but has
withheld this information from consumers while making numerous
statements about the quality and reliability of the Sorento.

What to do
Owners of affected vehicles may file a claim for reimbursement at
www.crankshaftboltclassaction.com.  The site includes detailed
information about eligibility.  Plaintiffs in the case were
represented by attorney Shmuel Klein of Mahwah, N.J.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISE: Must Defend Against Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco Friday that while disappointing holiday sales justified
Leapfrog's write-offs in the second quarter of 2013, the company
hasn't offered a good enough explanation for a business forecast
about-face to fully dodge a securities fraud class action.

The case is captioned, In Re Leapfrog Enterprise, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal.)


LOS ANGELES, CA: Landlords File Class Suit Over Rental Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
landlords sued Los Angeles in a federal class action, claiming a
rental ordinance gives city officials and employees law
enforcement-like powers that violate protections against unlawful
searches and seizures.

Pasadena landlord Brandi Garris and Venice landlord Jason Teague
also sued Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department,
formerly known as the Housing Department. They claim that City of
Los Angeles Housing Code is "facially unconstitutional," under the
Fourth Amendment, and allow city employees to seize evidence and
make arrests.

If landlords or tenants are uncooperative they can be charged with
a criminal misdemeanor and fined $1,000 a day.

"The inspection ordinance in reality authorizes wholesale searches
by law enforcement officers of every rental residence in the city
without any showing of probable cause," the lawsuit states.

The landlords cite the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of
Los Angeles v. Patel, which affirmed a Ninth Circuit ruling that
city officials could not force hotels to keep records of guest
registries for 90 days.

The city said it needed access to guest registries day and night
for the LAPD to combat prostitution and drug dealing in some
motels. The motel owners successfully argued the spot checks
violated their constitutional rights.

Garris and Teague say the city should modify the ordinance so that
a neutral arbiter can review landlords' objections before they
face criminal or civil penalties.

Their attorney Dominic Surprenant, with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, said the ordinance is unfair to landlords and tenants.

"It's essentially saying to renters: 'We're going to send police
officers -- city inspectors who also have the powers of police
officers -- into your homes. And you can't say no, and you can't
get a hearing,'" Surprenant said in a telephone interview.

Surprenant said there had been some "friction" between the city
and the two landlords before they filed suit, but declined to
comment on whether they faced criminal or civil liability.

University of Southern California adjunct assistant professor and
constitutional expert Olu Orange said he was surprised the Los
Angeles City Attorney's Office did not resolve the dispute before
a lawsuit was filed.

"The ordinance as it's drafted would seem to conflict with the
current state of the law," Orange said. "It makes sense that this
would be a problem, because the ordinance seems to allow
inspectors to bypass a determination that they should be on the
premises to look for evidence of crime or misdeeds in the absence
of there being a determination by a magistrate or some exigent
circumstances.

"You can't just write a law that lets government agents walk into
people's abodes and do stuff."

Los Angeles City Council this year amended an inspection ordinance
to increase the frequency of inspections in the city of 700,000
rental units. Officials now can inspect rentals every two years.
Previously, inspections happened every four years.

Though most landlords act lawfully, Rushmore Cervantes, general
manager of the city's Housing and Community Development
Department, said in a radio interview that about 4 percent of
landlords neglect their properties or do not have the money to
properly maintain their rentals.

Angelenos face an ongoing struggle to find affordable housing in
the city where the median household income hovers just above
$50,000 a year, according to the most recent U.S. Census data.

One-bedroom apartments in Los Angeles have a median rent of $1,870
and two-bedroom apartments cost $2,600, according to the Apartment
List's February Los Angeles rent report.

Landlords pay a regulatory fee of $43.32 per rental per year under
the ordinance. Surprenant said that landlords sometimes pass on
the fee to their tenants. The general manager enforces regulations
and city employees have the power to make arrests without
warrants, according to the lawsuit.

The landlords say they represent a potential class of hundreds of
thousands of people. They seek class certification, an injunction
against the ordinance, reimbursement of inspection fees and
penalties.

Jason Switzer, a tenant who says he paid inspection fees under the
ordinance, is also a party to the complaint.

The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and Los Angeles Housing and
Community Investment Department did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The case is captioned, BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON
TEAGUE, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, f/k/a LOS ANGELES
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01452 (C.D. Cal.,
February 22, 2017).

Attorneys for BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON TEAGUE:

     Dominic Surprenant, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
     Telephone: (213) 443-3000
     Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
     E-mail: dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com


M-I LLC: $7MM Settlement of "Syed" Case Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Fresno, Calif., gave preliminary approval to a
$7 million class action settlement involving M-I Swaco and its
oil-drilling specialists, known as "mud engineers," over wages and
rest breaks.

The case is captioned, SARMAD SYED and ASHLEY BALFOUR,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. M-I, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company,
doing business as M-I SWACO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, No. 1:12-cv-01718-DAD-MJS (E.D. Cal.)


MATTHEW BENDER: Himmelstein Firm Sues Over Tanbook Omissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that,
hitting a LexisNexis subsidiary with a class action in Manhattan,
a law firm says Matthew Bender & Co.'s self-proclaimed authority
on landlord-tenant law in New York is anything but.

More commonly known as the Tanbook, the New York Landlord-Tenant
Law is one of several legal publications that make up Matthew
Bender & Co.'s annual "Color Books" series.

Hoping to represent a class, the law firm Himmelstein, McConnell,
Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph brought a Feb. 23 complaint against the
publisher in Manhattan Supreme Court.

"Rather than an authoritative source of state statutes, laws and
regulations, the Tanbook, which is represented by the defendant as
complete and unedited, is instead, at least as pertains to those
involving rent regulated housing in New York rife with omissions
and inaccuracies, rendering it of no value to the attorneys, lay
people, or judges who use it," the 25-page complaint states.

Himmelstein McConnell says it has bought multiple copies of the
Tanbook every year since at least 2010 to keep its attorneys up to
speed on real estate law. At least 100,000 Tanbooks were sold
during that period, according to the complaint.

The class says its attorneys at Fishman Rozen conducted an
investigation that found 37 omissions and eight inaccuracies in
the 2016 Tanbook regarding provisions of state and local statutes
and regulations concerning rent regulation in New York.

One omission included the entire subsections providing for the
mandated formula for calculating rents when a rent-stabilized
tenant -- who qualifies for exemptions as either a senior citizen
or disabled person -- receives a rent reduction order from the
state Department of Housing and Community Renewal.

Other omissions included subsections limiting landlord from taking
a vacancy-rent increase to no more than one time in any one
calendar year.

The class seeks restitution and an injunction, alleging deceptive
business practices, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Himmelstein, McConnell wants to represent a class of all Tanbook
purchasers since February 2011.

"By offering a complete and authoritative compilation of such laws
and regulations and then failing to provide such a product to the
plaintiff and members of the class, the defendant breached its
contract with such persons and entities," the complaint states.

Other books in the series include New York Commercial Law
(Goldbook) and New York Real Property Law (Bluebook).

LexisNexis, a division of RELX Group, serves customers in more
than 175 countries with more than 10,000 employees worldwide.
Customers can by print and digital versions of the Tanbook at the
LexisNexis online store for $120.

Neither Matthew Bender & Co. nor LexisNexis have returned requests
for comment.


MEDIX STAFFING: Faces "Danelian" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Danelian, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Medix Staffing Solutions,
Inc., an Illinois corporation; City of Hope National Medical
Center, a California corporation; City of Hope, an entity of
unknown form; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages as required under
the Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission  Wage
Orders. Specifically, Employees were required to work post-shift
hours, off-the-clock, for which they were never paid wages.

Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medixteam.com/-- is
a provider of workforce solutions for clients and candidates
across the healthcare, scientific and IT industries.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
research coordinator within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     David Keledjian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 230-8380
     Fax: (818) 230-0308
     E-mail: david@yeremianJaw.com
             davidk@yeremianlaw.com


MIDATLANTIC FLOORING: Seeks Review of Decision in "Barton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Aaron Bailey, Mark Grossman and Midatlantic Flooring
Ventures Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Pauline Barton v. MidAtlantic Flooring Ventures, et al.,
Case No. 1-13-cv-04592, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Pauline Barton v. MidAtlantic
Flooring Ventures, et al., Case No. 17-1337, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee PAULINE BARTON, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated ("Does"), is represented by:

          Robert J. Hagerty, Esq.
          CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A.
          8000 Midlantic Drive
          Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S
          P.O. Box 5016
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (609) 234-6800
          Facsimile: (856) 235-2786
          E-mail: rhagerty@capehart.com

Defendants-Appellants MIDATLANTIC FLOORING VENTURES INC, d/b/a
Prosource of South Jersey d/b/a Prosource of Raritan Center, AARON
BAILEY and MARK GROSSMAN are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Ash, Esq.
          DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP
          500 Frank West Burr Boulevard
          Glenpointe Centre West, Suite 31
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: (609) 896-3600
          Facsimile: (201) 928-0588
          E-mail: jash@decotiislaw.com

               - and -

          Ian D. Meklinsky, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 299-2758
          E-mail: imeklinsky@foxrothschild.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Roshko" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSLAN ROSHKO on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, against MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AND ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00745 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017),
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair collection practices while attempting to collect on debts.

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the
business of collecting or attempting to collect debts on behalf of
Midland Funding, LLC as one of its principal areas of business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maxim Maximov, Esq.
     MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
     1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229
     Phone: (718) 395-3459
     Fax: (718) 408-9570
     E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Class Action Over High Interest Rate Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge on Feb. 27 certified a class-action lawsuit accusing the big
U.S. debt collector Midland Funding LLC of violating New York
usury laws by charging thousands of struggling borrowers interest
rates above 25 percent when trying to collect.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel's decision in White Plains,
New York, came eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused
to hear an appeal by Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management
Inc, which are units of Encore Capital Group Inc, seeking to halt
Saliha Madden's lawsuit.

Madden had objected to the 27 percent rate that Midland charged on
a roughly $5,000 debt it bought from a credit card account she had
opened with Bank of America.

In a 43-page decision, Seibel said New York has a "fundamental
public policy" against interest rates exceeding 25 percent, and
the state's criminal usury cap "applies to prevent a creditor"
from collecting a higher rate on defaulted debt.

As a result, the judge said Midland must face Madden's civil
lawsuit claiming it violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and New York's General Business Law, based on its
alleged violation of the usury cap.

Madden had sued on behalf of roughly 49,780 borrowers.  Class
certification can lead to higher overall recoveries.

In a statement, San Diego-based Encore said it was disappointed
with the decision and evaluating its options, but has "long since
changed its business practices to occupy a conservative, consumer-
centric stance.  We remain committed to following all of the laws
that govern our industry."

Daniel Schlanger, a lawyer for Madden, did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

Debt collectors typically buy debt from banks and other creditors
for pennies on the dollar, and try to collect higher amounts from
borrowers.

Encore said it spent about $907 million to buy $9.8 billion of
receivables in 2016.

Many regulators have expressed concern that high interest rates,
including on products such as "payday loans," can trap borrowers
into endless debt cycles.

The class action covers New Yorkers who since November 2008
received letters from Midland seeking interest above 25 percent,
and whose cardholder agreements purport to be governed by state
laws such as Delaware's that lack usury caps, or "select no law
other than New York."

In May 2015, the federal appeals court in New York reversed Judge
Seibel's prior dismissal of Madden's case, saying Midland was not
a national bank deserving protection from Madden's claims.

The case is Madden v Midland Funding LLC et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-08149.


MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: June Trial Scheduled in Jail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Schuldt, writing for Wisconsin Justice Initiative,
reports that a class action lawsuit alleging Milwaukee County
jailers shackled pregnant inmates during childbirth will go to
trial June 5.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller denied a motion from lawyers
representing the defendants, including Sheriff David Clarke, and
the main plaintiff in the case, identified in court documents as
Jane Doe, asking for separate trials over the class action
allegations and allegations that former Milwaukee County jailer
Xavier D. Thicklen sexually assaulted Jane Doe on five occasions.

Jailers work for Clarke.  The sheriff testified in a deposition in
the case that he did not know how many of his employees, whether
it was 20 or 200, were referred each year to the district
attorney's office for potential criminal charges.

The shackling issue arose during the course of pre-trial work by
Jane Doe's lawyers and the class action allegations were added to
the original sexual assault lawsuit. Doe's lawyers have said as
many as 300 women could be part of the class.

Meanwhile, Mr. Thicklen's lawyer, Lew Wasserman, has asked to
withdraw from the case because he has not been paid and cannot
find Mr. Thicklen.

"Mr. Thicklen has failed to communicate with counsel for over a
year, indeed, counsel has been informed that even Mr. Thicklen's
family is unsure of where he is presently residing," Wasserman
said in his motion to withdraw.  "Messages sent to Mr. Thicklen's
family do not result in any response by Mr. Thicklen.  Moreover,
counsel concludes that it is unlikely that Mr. Thicklen will
voluntarily appear for trial."

Lawyers for all the parties in the case wanted separate trials on
the sexual assault and class action issues.  The sexual assault
claim and the shacking claims rely on different sets of facts and
Mr. Thicklen, the correction officer, had nothing to do with
shackling female inmates.

"Presentation of evidence of the other claim could confuse or
prejudice the jury," the lawyers said.

In addition, county lawyers want to ask an appeals court whether
Mr. Thicklen was acting in the scope of his employment when
allegedly conducting the assaults, and Jane Doe's lawyers want
more time to conduct discovery on the class action allegations.

Judge Stadtmueller was having none of it.

"This matter is now almost three years old, and will be more than
that by the time of trial . . . If the parties have failed to use
this extraordinarily extended period to conduct necessary
discovery and motion briefing on the class issue, the problem is
of their own making," he wrote.

Gretchen Schuldt writes a blog for Wisconsin Justice Initiative,
whose mission is "To improve the quality of justice in Wisconsin
by educating the public about legal issues and encouraging civic
engagement in and debate about the judicial system and its
operation."


MOLYCORP INC: May 1 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that a proposed
settlement has been reached in the Molycorp, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court"), Case No. 13 Civ. 5697 (PAC), includes: ALL
PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MOLYCORP, INC.
("MOLYCORP") SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 21, 2012
THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 15, 2013.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the District
Court and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a
hearing will be held at 4:00 p.m. on May 1, 2017 before the
Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Court Judge, in
Courtroom 14C, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007 for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
Action for the principal amount of $1,250,000, plus accrued
interest, should be approved by the District Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Approval Order and
Judgment should be entered by the District Court dismissing the
Action with prejudice; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be
approved; and (4) whether the Fee and Expense Application should
be approved.  In connection with the Fee and Expense Application,
Lead Counsel will request attorneys' fees of 33% of the Settlement
Fund, plus expenses (exclusive of administration costs) not to
exceed $75,000.

If you purchased Molycorp securities during the period from
February 21, 2012 through October 15, 2013, inclusive, your rights
may be affected by the settlement of the Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion For an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and a
copy of the Claim Form, you may obtain copies by writing to In re
Molycorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Angeion Group, 1801
Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or by calling
(855) 306-1914, or on the internet at
www.MolycorpSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's
website at www.kmllp.com.  If you are a Settlement Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Claim Form, postmarked on or before May 18,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked by no later than
April 10, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above.  All members of the Settlement Class who
have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
October 21, 2016.  If you properly and timely exclude yourself
from the Settlement 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.

Any objections to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be
filed with the Court and delivered to designated representative
Lead Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they are
received no later than April 10, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the
Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel:

         Ira Press, Esq.
         KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
         825 Third Avenue, 16th
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: (212) 371-6600

By order of the District Court, United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Elderly Homeowners Sue Over Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that elderly homeowners who have reverse mortgages are being
charged excessive fees for unnecessary and illegal "drive-by"
inspections, a class of consumers claims in Chicago.

The lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court says Nationstar
Mortgage -- operating under the name Champion Mortgage Company --
pads its bottom line by "systematically side-stepping" Housing and
Urban Development requirements and conducting multiple inspections
of the same properties in a 25-day period.

"Champion targets elderly homeowners who have purportedly
defaulted on some obligation under their reverse mortgages, then
charges them repeated, unnecessary, and unreasonable 'drive-by'
property inspection fees for inspections that may or may not have
actually occurred, and to the extent they did occur, lasted only a
few seconds," the complaint states.

The drive-bys are scheduled by an automated system that "orders
property inspections at pre-set intervals to maximize company
profits, without regard to the results of the initial inspections
that reveal there is no risk or problem whatsoever with the
condition or occupancy of the property," according to the lawsuit.

Homeowners are supposed to be notified of any inspection fees
charged to their accounts, but "based on the process implemented,
Champion ignores its duty to provide notice to the borrower [and
so] plaintiff and reverse mortgage customers nationwide have and
continue to be fleeced by Champion's unnecessary inspections," the
complaint states.

Rena Nicholson -- an 80-year-old homeowner from Chicago -- is the
lead plaintiff in the case, and says her home was "inspected" five
times in November alone.  She says each inspection resulted in a
$20 charge to her account, with three of the charges coming on the
same day.  These charges add "hundreds, if not thousands, of
dollars to plaintiff's reverse mortgage balance over time when
compounded by interest on the fees," Nicholson says.

According to the complaint, a reverse mortgage is "a type of home
loan for older, cash-strapped homeowners (62 years or older)
requiring no monthly mortgage payments . . . [that] allow these
homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes while still
continuing to live there and keep the title to their homes."

The proposed class seeks damages for claims of breach of contract,
negligence, and unjust enrichment. It is represented by Katrina
Carroll of Lite, DePalma, and Greenberg in Chicago, and by Joseph
G. Sauder of McCune Wright Arevalo in Berwyn, Pa.

Nicholson's attorney declined to comment further on the lawsuit,
and Nationstar did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is captioned, RENA NICHOLSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC OF DELAWARE, D/B/A CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-1373 (N.D. Ill., February 22, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 750-1591
     Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             isalam@litedepalma.com

        - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
     555 Lancaster Ave.
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Telephone: (610) 200-0580
     Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
             mds@mccunewright.com
             jbk@mccunewright.com


NATURE'S BEST: Faces "Wise" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Wise, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nature's Best, LLC, a California
Limited Company, Kehe Distributors, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOE One through and including Doe Ten, Defendants, Case No. BC
649808 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 8, 2017),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay its hourly non-exempt
employees straight time wages for all hours worked, failed to pay
premium overtime compensation worked beyond eight hours per
workday or 40 hours per workweek, failed to provide statutory meal
periods and rest breaks, and failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.

Nature's Best, LLC is a wholesaler-distributor of health and
natural food products in the Natural Products industry.  The
Plaintiff performed truck driving services for Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     David Garrett, Esq.
     2 HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue
     17th Floor County of Los Angeles
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: 323.962.3777
     Fax: 323.962.3004


NESTLE USA: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Marketing of Frozen Meals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Moore, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC
649898 (Cal. Super., February 8, 2017), alleges deceptive practice
by Defendant of marketing its Lean Cuisine(R) frozen meals as
having "No Preservatives" when many of them contain citric and/or
acetic acid preservative.  The case alleges negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, violation of the California False Advertising Law,
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of
Express Warranty, breach of implied warranty, and quasi-contract.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a nutrition, health and wellness company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
     Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
             kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
             lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

        - and -

     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDALNAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: rshelquist@locklaw.com
             rapeterson@locklaw.com


NEWARK, NJ: Newark Cab Assoc. Appeals Decision to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Newark Cab Association, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Newark Cab
Association, et al. v. City of Newark, Case No. 2-16-cv-04681, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Newark City on August 2,
2016, alleging civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Newark Cab Association, et al.
v. City of Newark, Case No. 17-1358, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants NEWARK CAB ASSOCIATION, NEWARK TAXI OWNER
ASSOCIATION, TETERBORO AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE, ABBAS ABBAS,
PETRO ABDELMESSIEH, SAYEV KHELLAH, MICHAEL W. SAMUEL, and GEORGE
TAWFIK, individually, and by certain plaintiffs on behalf of
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard W. Wedinger, Esq.
          BARRY MCTIERNAN & MOORE, P.C.
          75 Montgomery Street
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 333-0300
          E-mail: rwedinger@bmctwlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF NEWARK is represented by:

          Gary S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          CITY OF NEWARK
          920 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 733-5945
          E-mail: lipshutzg@ci.newark.nj.us

               - and -

          Eric S. Pennington, Esq.
          ERIC S. PENNINGTON, P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-0600
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9898
          E-mail: epenningtonlaw@aol.com


NIKE INC: "Taylor" Suit Over Outlet Store Prices Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge dismissed
with leave to amend a class action in Portland, Ore., claiming
Nike outlet stores' dual price tags mislead customers into
thinking they're getting a bargain, finding the lead plaintiff's
fraud claims lack the specificity needed to proceed.

The case is captioned, MONIKA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v.  NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00661-MO (D. Ore.).


NIKE RETAIL: Requires Employees to Wear Nike Clothing, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
former employee of Nike Retail Services claims in a class action
in Santa Ana, Calif., that the athletic shoe giant requires
employees to buy and wear Nike brand clothing at work.

The case is captioned, OMRAN HAMID, an individual, on behalf
himself and all others similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs,
v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC. an Oregon Corporation; R.J. HILL an
Individual; and DOES 1 to 200, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 30-
2017-00904483, Orange County Superior Court, February 17, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Natalie Mirzayan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF NATALIE MIRZAYAN
     26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300
     Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
     Telephone: (949) 285-3550
     E-mail: mirzayanlaw@outlook.com


NORTH STAR: Faces "Valencia" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STEVE VALENCIA, an individual, and LUIS FERNANDEZ SOTO, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NORTH STAR GAS LTD. CO., a
California corporation; PEOPLEASE LLC, a South Carolina
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-GPC-JMA (S.D.
Cal., February 8, 2017), alleges that employees of the Defendant
often work well in excess of eight hours per day and 40 hours per
week. Despite this, Defendants do not pay any overtime
compensation.  The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, the California
Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, California
Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage a natural gas company
responsible for the distribution and supply of propane. Defendants
employ Plaintiffs and others to transport propane by driving
various routes to and from Defendants' propane supply.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
     Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
     Shaun Markley, Esq.
     NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
     225 Broadway, 19th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 325-0492
     Fax: (619) 325-0492
     Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
            atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
            smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


OLD DOMINION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Sanders" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Eugene Sanders v. Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02837-CAB-NLS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eugene
Sanders commenced the lawsuit against Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-02016-00030725-CU-OE-
CTL).  The lawsuit was later removed to the District Court.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. provides regional and intrastate
domestic shipping, assembly and distribution, domestic drayage,
direct service.

The appellate case is captioned as Eugene Sanders v. Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., Case No. 17-80017, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent EUGENE SANDERS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Petitioner OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., is
represented by:

          Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          Sylvia Kim, Esq.
          John Arthur Van Hook, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 956-3419
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com
                  jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4746
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2304
          E-mail: bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com


PALM BEACH FERRARI: Faces Class Action Over Odometers
-----------------------------------------------------
Fiat Chrysler Authority's Sam McEachern, citing The Daily Mail,
reports that an employee of Palm Beach Ferrari in Florida is
accusing the automaker of using an electronic device to roll back
the odometers of cars in order to drive up their value.

Robert 'Bud' Root began selling Ferraris at the dealership in 2009
but in 2016 was immediately fired and replaced by 32-year old
Noelle Miskulin, who was at the time the dealership owner's
mistress and is now his wife.  The dealer claimed Root was fired
for an "egregious violation of business ethics," however the real
reason, he says, is that he objected to the use of a device that
was used to roll back the odometers of some customers' cars.
The device, which is actually the Ferrari Diagnostic Easy
Integrated System (DEIS) used to diagnose problems with the car
and make adjustments to the settings, is allegedly used to roll
back in the odometers of customer cars when authorized through a
network connection by Ferrari higher ups in Italy.  In one
instance, retired Sara Lee foods executive C. Steven McMillan
apparently had the odometer of his LaFerrari turned to 0 before he
sold it, boosting its value from $1 million to $3 million.
The dealership denied the allegations when asked for comment by
The Daily Mail.

"The dealership does not litigate in the newspaper," a dealer
representative said.  "Of course, we believe this case is wholly
without merit and will be vigorously defended in court."
Ferrari did not respond to a request for comment.


PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Breached Duty to Reimburse, MSP Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class-action federal
lawsuit in Cleveland claims Progressive Insurance has breached its
statutorily-mandated duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage
organizations for medical expenses arising out of automobile
accidents.

The plaintiffs are MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, MSP Recovery LLC and
MSPA Claims 1 LLC. The defendants are The Progressive Corporation
dba Progressive Group of Insurance Company and Progressive
Casualty Insurance Company.

The case is captioned, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware
entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a
Florida entity,  Plaintiffs, vs. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION d/b/a
PROGRESSIVE GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00390 (N.D. Ohio, February 24, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     5093 Heath Gate Drive
     New Albany, OH 43054
     Phone: (614) 657-3454
     E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com

          - and -

     Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
     Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Phone: (504) 355-0086
     E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com
             cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Baum, Esq.
     R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
     Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
     BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA  90025
     Tel: (310) 207-3233
     Fax: (310) 820-7444
     E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
             pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


PUDA COAL: May 10 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE PUDA COAL SECURITIES INC.
et al. LITIGATION
CASE NO:  1:11-CV-2598 (DLC)
TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF PUDA
COAL, INC. ("PUDA") OR ENGAGED IN TRANSACTIONS IN PUDA PUT OPTIONS
OR PUDA CALL OPTIONS DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 8, 2010 THROUGH
AND INCLUDING APRIL 11, 2011

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiffs in the above-
captioned class action (the "Action") have proposed a settlement
with Defendant MSPC Certified Public Accountants and Advisors,
P.C. sued as Moore Stephens, P.C.  ("MSPC" or "Defendant") that
provides for MSPC to pay $125,000 for the benefit of the
Settlement Class (the "MSPC Settlement").

The MSPC Settlement is in addition to (1) the $7.4 million
settlement with Defendant Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (the
"Macquarie Settlement"); (2) the $1.2 million settlement with
Defendant Brean Murray, Carret & Co. (the "Brean Settlement"); (3)
the settlement with Defendants Lawrence S. Wizel and C. Mark Tang
(the "U.S. Directors") that provided for payment of $100,000 and
assignment of certain claims for the benefit of the Settlement
Class (the "U.S. Directors Settlement") (collectively the
"Settlements"); and (4) monies made available to purchasers of
Puda common stock in Puda's December 2010 Offering through the
Securities and Exchange Commission Fair Fund process relating to
Macquarie.

A hearing will be held on May 10, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Denise Cote in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY,
10007, to determine: (1) whether the MSPC Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the
releases and liability protections specified and described in the
Notice and the respective Stipulations should be granted, (3)
whether the $125,000 obtained from this MSPC Settlement should be
used to reimburse Plaintiffs' Counsel and to pay the costs of
pursuing assigned claims against Puda's insurance company, PICC,
for the benefit of the Settlement Class.; and (4) any other
matters relevant to the Settlements the Court considers necessary
or appropriate (the "Settlement Hearing").

IF YOU PURCHASED PUDA COMMON STOCK OR CALL OPTIONS ON PUDA COMMON
STOCK OR SOLD PUT OPTIONS ON PUDA COMMON STOCK DURING THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD (DECEMBER 8, 2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
APRIL 11, 2011) YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SETTLEMENT.
If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed
Settlement, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

         Puda Coal Securities Litigation
         P.O. Box 2838
         Portland, OR 97208-2838

A copy of the Notice is also available at www.pudacoalfund.com.

If you previously filed a proof of claim with the Claims
Administrator related to the Brean, Macquarie, and U.S. Directors
Settlement, you may rely on your previously filed claim and need
not file a separate Proof of Claim in the MSPC Settlement.

If Plaintiffs' Counsel is successful in recovering funds from PICC
in China for the Settlement Class, such funds shall be distributed
to Authorized Claimants in accordance with the existing Plan of
Allocation.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement or application for
reimbursement of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to counsel for the Plaintiffs no later than
April 19, 2017, in the manner and form set forth in the Notice.
All objections must be prepared and served in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  All requests to be excluded
from the MSPC Settlement must be filed by April 19, 2017.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel: Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (T) (310)
201-9150, (F) (310) 432-1495, info@glancylaw.com,
www.glancylaw.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated:
February 27, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
URL: www.pudacoalfund.com.


QUALCOMM INC: Ervin Sues Over Modem Chipset Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SCOTT ERVIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00713-HRL (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available remedies to which he is entitled
for Qualcomm's unlawful conduct.

The action concerns purchasers of cellular telephones and other
cellular devices such as computer tablets. In each such device,
there is a modem chipset (also called a baseband processor), which
allows the device to communicate and transmit voice and data
across wireless networks controlled by carriers, such as Verizon
or Sprint.

The Plaintiff brought the action against Defendant Qualcomm
Incorporated for its anticompetitive conduct in acquiring and
maintaining its monopoly over the modem chipset market and abusing
the intellectual property rights underlying this technology, and
charging an excessive and unlawful royalty on cellular phones or
devices incorporating such patents, with the result that each end-
user purchaser of such phones or device pays an inflated price.

Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293 8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293 8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com


RADY CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that
telemarketing calls can get irritating, and debt collectors can
certainly be ruthless.  If one's information is leaked, the number
of calls received can be overwhelming.  And, it can be especially
frustrating if one has paid a debt, but records aren't kept up to
date, so the calls keep flooding in despite efforts to get these
to stop.  In this day and age, especially after the recession,
companies do not take outstanding debts lightly.  But, when do
mere reminder calls become downright harassing?

Taneesha Crooks and Anthony Brown of San Diego filed a class
action lawsuit against a local hospital, stating that they
received harassing phone calls which violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The act was passed by the United
States Congress in 1991 and limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
message, and fax machines.  It also states that several technical
requirements for fax machines, auto-dialers, and voice messaging
systems -- with provisions requiring identification and contact
information of the entity using the device to be contained in the
messages.

The complaints were initially filed individually.  On February
8th, the suit against Rady Children's Hospital San Diego was
presented to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, claiming the hospital had communicated to the
individuals illegally, invading their privacy.  The calls,
according to the lawsuit, had caused the plaintiffs to suffer from
anxiety and stress related to paranoia induced by their invasion
of privacy and the sheer number of unexpected calls received.  The
purpose of the hospital's system was to collect the plaintiff's
debt and their information was already in their records.  The
calls were placed to those with outstanding bills by an automatic
telephone dialing system using either a fake or a prerecorded
voice, and the system would leave harassing or abusive voice
messages if the receiver didn't pick up.  The plaintiffs had put
in repeated requests for the service to stop, paying off the
outstanding bills, without luck.  Their phones kept ringing
despite these efforts.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys, Abbas Kazerounian and Jason A.
Ibey of Costa Mesa's Kazerouni Law Group APC, Daniel G. Shay of
Law Office of Daniel G. Shay in San Diego and Joshue B. Swigart
and Yana A. Hart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego, seek all of the
following in a resolution: a trial by jury, certify the case as a
class action, designate class representative and counsel,
injunctive relief, $500 in statutory damages for every violation,
$1,500 in statutory damages for every knowing violation, and all
equitable relief.  The case is known as U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California Case number 17-cv-00246.

The hospital has also been under heat for discriminatory treatment
of a transgender teenager back in September.  The patient's mother
took her son to the hospital in early April 2015 for suicidal
ideation and to treat his serious self-inflicted injuries.  The
mother claims she made it perfectly clear to the staff that her
son must be treated as male for all purposes.  However, the
hospital repeatedly referred to him as female.  The lawsuit was
filed in September 2016.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDIE MALDANADO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00055 (S.D. Tex., February 8, 2017),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods from Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members' daily hours worked, despite knowing
that Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked
(and continue to work) throughout their designated 30-minute meal
periods each day.

REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. provides waste collection and disposal
services to its customers throughout the State of Texas and the
United States.  Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt waste
disposal dispatcher at Republic's Del Valle (Austin) waste
disposal facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REVCLAIMS LLC: Appeals Ruling in "Hargett" Suit to Eighth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Revclaims, LLC, Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community
Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and White
River Health System, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims, LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-00200-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Jonesboro.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated in the Craighead County Circuit Court (Case No. CV-
16-00449), and was later removed to the District Court.

Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community
hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce
accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in
record time.

The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims,
LLC, et al., Case No. 17-1340, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

According to the Appellate Case docket, cases were transferred
from miscellaneous case numbers 17-8004 and 17-8005.

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

   -- Appendix is due on March 7, 2017;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community
      Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., White
      River Health System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC is due on
      March 7, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 20 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 5 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee
      brief.  NO EXTENSIONS will be granted.

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

          Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
          WILCOX & LACY, PLC
          600 South Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 931 3101
          Facsimile: (870) 931 3102
          E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq.
          324 South Main
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336 0155
          Facsimile: (870) 934 8887
          E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant Revclaims, LLC, is represented by:

          Joseph L. Adams, Esq.
          JONES & WALKER LLP
          190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 949-4856
          Facsimile: (601) 949-4804
          E-mail: jojoadams@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq.
          Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077
          Telephone: (870) 932 0900
          Facsimile: (870) 932 2553
          E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com
                  jpuryear@wpmfirm.com
                  rwilson@wpmfirm.com

Defendant Baptist Health is represented by:

          Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM
          425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372-6175
          E-mail: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com

Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and St. Bernard's
Community Hospital Corporation are represented by:

          Paul D. Waddell, Esq.
          Sam Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC
          310 East Street
          P.O. Box 1700
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700
          Telephone: (870) 931-1700
          Facsimile: (870) 931-1800
          E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com
                  swaddell@wcjfirm.com

Defendant White River Health System, Inc., is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq.
          Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          555 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Batesville, AR 72503-0000
          Telephone: (501) 793-3821


SALOV NORTH: May 30 Filippo Berio Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Gutride Safier LLP
regarding the Filippo Berio Olive Oil Class Action Settlement.

If you purchased Filippo Berio Olive Oil a class action settlement
may affect your rights.

A proposed class action settlement has been reached concerning
Filippo Berio Olive Oil labeling practices.  The case is known as
Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-02411-YGR
(N.D. Cal.).

What is this about?
The lawsuit claims that Filippo Berio olive oil products were
inappropriately labeled as "Imported from Italy" on the front
label. As part of the settlement, defendant Salov North America
Corp. has agreed to stop this labeling practice and provide
payments for customers.  The defendant denies any wrongdoing.

Who is a class member?
You are an eligible class member if you purchased, between May 23,
2010 and June 30, 2015, (in the United States, for personal use
and not resale), any of the following Filippo Berio branded olive
oil products: Robusto Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Extra Virgin Olive
Oil, Delicato Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Organic Extra Virgin Olive
Oil, Olive Oil, or Light Tasting Olive Oil.

What are the benefits?
Defendant will provide class members a payment of $0.50 per can or
bottle purchased.  A minimum of $2.00 will be paid to any class
member who submits a valid claim.  Class members can obtain
payments for up to 10 purchases (up to $5.00 per household)
without proof of purchase.  Proof of purchase is required to
obtain a payment of more than $5.00 per household (for more than
10 bottles or cans purchased).

What are my rights?
You have the right to make a claim, to object to the settlement,
to exclude yourself from the litigation, or to do nothing.  To
receive a payment, you must submit a claim, either online or by
mail to the administrator.  Your claim must be postmarked by
May 2, 2017.  In the alternative, you may exclude yourself from
the litigation.  This is the only way to preserve your right to
pursue a separate lawsuit against the defendant about the claims
released by this settlement. You will receive no payment.  Your
request for exclusion must be received by May 2, 2017.  Finally,
you may object to the settlement.  To object, you must submit an
objection in writing that complies with the requirements in the
settlement notice available at www.SNAOliveOilSettlement.com.
Your objection must be received by May 2, 2017.  If you do
nothing, you will receive no payment and have no right to sue
later for the claims released by the settlement.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, 1304 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, on May 30, 2017 at 2:00
p.m., to decide whether to approve the settlement and to award
attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $982,500, to be paid by
Defendant, and $2,500 for the Plaintiff, as a representative
award.  The motion for fees and expenses will be posted on the
website below after they are filed.  You may attend this hearing,
but you don't have to.

Payments will be made to the Settlement Class only if the Court
approves the settlement and all appeals are resolved.  Please be
patient.

If the settlement does not become effective, the litigation will
continue, but only on behalf of purchasers in California.  If you
are a purchaser in California, you have the same rights under the
settlement as other class members.  You also have the right to
make a claim or object now and exclude yourself from the
litigation later, if the settlement does not become effective.

For more information, please visit www.SNAOliveOilSettlement.com,
or contact the claim administrator at 1-844-702-2783 or by writing
to: Kumar v Salov, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58476,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-8476, or contact class counsel Gutride
Safier LLP at www.gutridesafier.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued Over Increase of Insulin Benchmark Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR VALDES and HECTOR J. VALDES, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS
U.S., LLC, NOVO NORDISK INC., and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 13,
2017), seeks remedy for the economic harms to consumers from
Defendants' fraudulent scheme.

Over 29 million people, 9.3% of the country, live with diabetes. A
life threatening disease, many of those with diabetes rely on
daily insulin treatments to survive. Interruptions to these
regimes can have severe consequences, including sustained damage
to the kidneys, heart, nerves, eyes, feet, and skin. Indeed,
diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure, adult-onset
blindness, and lower-limb amputations in the United States.

The Defendants manufacture insulin used to treat diabetes. Over
the course of the last five years, each has raised the publicly-
reported, benchmark prices of their respective drugs in an
astounding and inexplicable manner. Drugs that used to cost $25
per prescription now cost between $300 and $450 dollars. And in
the last five years alone, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly
have raised their benchmark prices by over 150%. Some patients now
pay almost $900 dollars per month just to obtain the insulin drugs
they need to survive.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438 9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357 9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com


SCRAM OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Alcohol-Monitoring Systems Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers claim in a federal class action in Los Angeles that
Scram of California and Alcohol Monitoring Systems sell defective
transdermal alcohol-monitoring systems that produce false-
positives.

The case is captioned, ROSEANNE HANSEN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; JENNIFER OH, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. SCRAM OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a California Corporation; ALCOHOL MONITORING
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01474 (C.D. Cal., February
23, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Edwin I. Aimufua, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN I. AIMUFUA
     17000 Ventura Blvd, Suite # 201
     Encino, California 91316
     Telephone: (818) 855-1118
     Facsimile: (818) 855-1101
     E-mail: eia@aimufualaw.com


SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Ruling in "Mojica" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled SUSAN MOJICA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., the Defendant. Case No. 5:14-cv-05258-TLB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
has sought certification of a class and two subclasses asserting
claims under the Federal Communications Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Securus Technologies, Inc. v.
Susan Mojica, Case No. 17-8008, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

Plaintiff-Respondent Susan Mojica, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert A. Braun, Esq.
          Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          West Tower, Suite 500
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-3934
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  bbrown@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
          James Maro, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  mgalloway@ktmc.com
                  sholbrook@ktmc.com
                  jmaro@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: pkahana@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

Defendant-Petitioner Securus Technologies, Inc., is represented
by:

          Woody Bassett, Esq.
          James M. Graves, Esq.
          BASSETT LAW FIRM
          221 N. College
          P.O. Box 3618
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618
          Telephone: (479) 521-9996
          Facsimile: (479) 521-9600
          E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com
                  jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua Fowkes, Esq.
          Eren Jon Alexander Gryskiewicz, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Joyce, Esq.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          1717 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5342
          Telephone: (202) 857-6000
          E-mail: joshua.fowkes@arentfox.com
                  jon.gryskiewicz@arentfox.com
                  stephanie.joyce@arentfox.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Herrington, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 324-1445
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com


SEXY HAIR: Shampoo Not Sulfate-Free, "Crane" Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the makers and sellers of
Healthy Sexy Hair market the shampoo as sulfate-free, but the
bottle contains sodium sulfate and salt (sodium chloride), one
woman claims in a federal class action in Boston against Sexy Hair
Concepts LLC and Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc.

The case is captioned, Molly Crane, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sexy Hair
Concepts, LLC, and Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10300-FDS (D. Mass., February 23,
2017)

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
     Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
     Seaport East
     Two Seaport Lane, Floor 6
     Boston, MA  02210
     Telephone: (617) 439-3939
     Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
     E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
             imcloughlin@shulaw.com

          - and -

     Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
     QUAT LAW OFFICES
     929 Worcester Rd.
     Framingham MA 01701
     Tel: 508-872-1261
     E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com


SHELBY COUNTY: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinett" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lacey Robinett filed an appeal from the District Court's
order and judgment entered on January 31, 2017, in the lawsuit
styled Lacey Robinett v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00188-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lacey
Robinett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, initiated the lawsuit against Shelby County Healthcare
Corporation, doing business as Regional One Health and Regional
Medical Center, and Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC, on July 26,
2016.

Shelby County provides a variety of health care services to the
residents of Memphis, Tennessee.

The appellate case is captioned as Lacey Robinett v. Shelby County
Healthcare Corp., et al., Case No. 17-1336, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on March 27, 2017;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Lacey Robinett is due on March 27, 2017;

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

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

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

          Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
          WILCOX & LACY, PLC
          600 South Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 931 3101
          Facsimile: (870) 931 3102
          E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq.
          324 South Main
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336 0155
          Facsimile: (870) 934 8887
          E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, doing
business as Regional One Health, doing business as Regional
Medical Center, is represented by:

          Don L. Hearn, Jr., Esq.
          John I. Houseal, Jr., Esq.
          GLANKLER & BROWN PLLC
          6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 525 1322
          Facsimile: (901) 761 1332
          E-mail: dhearn@glankler.com
                  jhouseal@glankler.com

               - and -

          John Irving Houseal, III, Esq.
          EASLEY & HOUSEAL PLLC
          510 E. Cross Street
          P.O. Box 1115
          Forrest City, AR 72336-1115
          Telephone: (870) 633-1447
          E-mail: john@ehtriallawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC is represented
by:

          Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq.
          Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077
          Telephone: (870) 932 0900
          Facsimile: (870) 932 2553
          E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com
                  jpuryear@wpmfirm.com
                  rwilson@wpmfirm.com


ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Hargett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., Baptist Health, St.
Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, White River Health
System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Tammy Hargett v. Revclaims, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00200-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated in the Craighead County Circuit Court (Case No. CV-
16-00449), and was later removed to the District Court.

Revclaims LLC helps large hospitals and health systems, community
hospitals, and trauma centers nationwide boost revenue and reduce
accounts receivable days by increasing injury claims recoveries in
record time.

The appellate case is captioned as Tammy Hargett v. St. Bernard's
Hospital Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1339, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

According to the Appellate Case docket, cases were transferred
from miscellaneous case numbers 17-8004 and 17-8005.

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

   -- Appendix is due on March 7, 2017;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Baptist Health, St. Bernard's Community
      Hospital Corporation, St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., White
      River Health System, Inc. and Revclaims, LLC is due on
      March 7, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 20 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 5 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee
      brief.  NO EXTENSIONS will be granted.

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

          Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
          WILCOX & LACY, PLC
          600 South Main Street
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 931 3101
          Facsimile: (870) 931 3102
          E-mail: blacy@wilcoxlacy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq.
          324 South Main
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336 0155
          Facsimile: (870) 934 8887
          E-mail: scriberfirm@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant Revclaims, LLC, is represented by:

          Joseph L. Adams, Esq.
          JONES & WALKER LLP
          190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 949-4856
          Facsimile: (601) 949-4804
          E-mail: jojoadams@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Mark Alan Mayfield, Esq.
          Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq.
          Ryan Michael Wilson, Esq.
          WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & MCNEIL, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3077
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-3077
          Telephone: (870) 932 0900
          Facsimile: (870) 932 2553
          E-mail: mmayfield@wpmfirm.com
                  jpuryear@wpmfirm.com
                  rwilson@wpmfirm.com

Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., and St. Bernard's
Community Hospital Corporation are represented by:

          Paul D. Waddell, Esq.
          Sam Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC
          310 East Street
          P.O. Box 1700
          Jonesboro, AR 72403-1700
          Telephone: (870) 931-1700
          Facsimile: (870) 931-1800
          E-mail: pwaddell@wcjfirm.com
                  swaddell@wcjfirm.com

Defendant Baptist Health is represented by:

          Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM
          425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372-6175
          E-mail: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com

Defendant White River Health System, Inc., is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq.
          Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq.
          MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
          555 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Batesville, AR 72503-0000
          Telephone: (501) 793-3821


STARKEY HEARING: Faces "Melcher" Suit Under FLSA, Minn. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN MELCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. STARKEY HEARING TECHNOLOGIES and STARKEY
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-00420-DSD-DTS (D.
Minn., February 8, 2017) seeks redress for damages and other
relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
to recover overtime wages for workweeks over 48 hours under the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Starkey Hearing Technologies manufactures advanced hearing
solutions.  Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Territory Sales
Representative (also referred to as inside sales representatives).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 215-6870
     E-mail: fisher@nka.com


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Walsh" Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH WALSH, 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-00940
(S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violated
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making false and/or
misleading statements in relation to its January 2017 secondary
public offering.  Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that a
cancer patient in a Stemline clinical trial tied to SL-401 had
died from a severe side effect on January 18, 2017.

The Defendant 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:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


STUDY.COM LLC: Faces "Lopez" Class Action Over Auto Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a subscriber of Study.com
claims in a class action in San Diego that the website failed to
obtain affirmative consent as required by California's Automatic
Renewal Law.

The case is captioned, MATTHEW LOPEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STUDY.COM, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1--10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-0006162-CU-MT-CTL, San Diego County
Superior Court, February 17, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
     A Professional Corporation
     4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
     Newport Beach, CA  92660
     Tel: (949) 706-6464
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
             vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com


TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Certified 2 Classes in Lidoderm Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that, rejecting arguments that damages would be too arduous to
calculate on a class-wide basis, a federal judge in San Francisco
certified two classes in a multidistrict antitrust suit over the
pain patch Lidoderm.

Drug makers Endo, Watson and Teikoku Pharma were sued in 2014,
accused of striking an anti-competitive settlement deal in May
2012 that blocked a cheaper generic version of Lidoderm from
hitting the market for more than a year.

As part of that settlement, Watson agreed to delay launching its
generic patch until September 2013 and to drop a patent suit that
was pending against Endo and Teikoku, the creators of the original
Lidoderm painkiller. In exchange, Endo gave Watson $96 million
worth of Lidoderm patches and vowed not to launch its own
authorized generic until 7-1/2 months after Watson's generic hit
the market, according to the plaintiffs.

In a ruling issued in the Northern District of California, U.S.
District Judge William Orrick III certified two classes of direct
buyers and end-payer plaintiffs who claim the arrangement
artificially inflated the price of Lidoderm and denied them access
to a cheaper generic alternative.

During a hearing last November, attorneys for the drug makers
implored Orrick to deny class certification, arguing that
calculating damages would require analyzing individual health
plans and supplier contracts for each plaintiff.

But Orrick found the plaintiffs' experts used "reliable,
statistically sound" methods to show class-wide injury and
damages. He also found the potential need to individually
determine which class members were injured and by how much "does
not negate the significant common and predominant legal and
factual questions" that must be resolved at summary judgment or
trial.

The judge certified a class of 55 direct-purchaser plaintiffs,
including wholesalers, pharmacies, hospitals and retail stores
that purchased Lidoderm from manufacturers between Aug. 23, 2012,
and May 1, 2014.

Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Jeffery Leitzinger estimated that direct
buyers overpaid $295 million for Lidoderm during the period of
delayed generic competition.

That figure was disputed by the drug makers' expert, Dr. Gregory
Leonard, who used "real-world prices" instead of those projected
in drug makers' internal forecasts to arrive at a $218 million
figure, $76 million less than Leitzinger's estimate.

Debate over precisely what numbers should be used to calculate
damages is not an issue to be decided for class certification,
Orrick wrote, adding the dispute "does not undermine the approach
or the reliability of Leitzinger's model."

The judge appointed Drogueria Betances Inc., Rochester Drug Co-
Operative Inc. and American Sales Company as class representatives
for the direct-purchasers class.

Orrick also appointed Faruqi & Faruqi, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher,
and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as co-lead counsel for the
direct buyers' class.

Turning to the end-payer plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the drug companies again argued that plaintiffs
failed to use the "real-world" prices of Lidoderm and generics
when they finally hit the market in 2013 and 2014.

End-payer plaintiffs' expert Dr. Hal Singer said those actual
prices were "tainted" by antitrust conduct and higher than they
would have been otherwise. The drug companies countered that
Singer failed to factor in Watson's higher-than-expected
production costs, which drove up the prices.

Orrick found calculating the precise "but-for" prices to assess
damages was not necessary at this stage of litigation.

The judge also rejected claims that Singer failed to properly
factor in consumers with flat co-pays who were unaffected by price
differences, or brand loyalists, who purchase brand-name drugs
despite the availability of generics.

Singer estimated brand-loyalist purchases made up 6.1 percent of
total purchases, and he excluded those from his damages model. The
drug companies' expert, James Hughes, offered a much higher
estimate, finding brand loyalists made up about 24 percent of the
proposed class.

"While Hughes believes that the number of brand loyalists is
higher (or the amount of brand loyalist purchases is higher), that
dispute does not undermine the fact that both experts rely on
common proof (as opposed to individualized proof) to estimate the
impact brand loyalists have on the aggregate damages number under
both of their models," Orrick wrote in his 52-page ruling.

The judge also found differences in copays and individual health
plans could be accounted for in the damages model.

Orrick certified two sub-classes of end-payer plaintiffs. One sub-
class encompasses all persons living in 17 states who bought
branded Lidoderm from Aug. 23, 2012, to Sept. 14, 2013, and those
who bought generic Lidoderm from Sept. 15, 2013, to Aug. 1, 2014.

The 17 states where individual end-payer plaintiffs are certified
include California, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.

The second certified sub-class of end-payer plaintiffs includes
all third-party payers and pharmacy benefit plans, including CVS
Caremark, Cigna and others, that purchased brand-name Lidoderm
from Sept. 15, 2013, to Aug. 1, 2014.

Named plaintiffs for the end-payer plaintiff class include Allied
Services Division Welfare Fund, the city of Providence and
individual buyer Letizia Gallotto of Massachusetts.

Orrick appointed Girard Gibbs, Cohen Milstein Sellars & Toll, and
Heins Mills & Olson as co-lead counsel for the end-payer class.

The judge also denied motions to exclude expert reports and
testimony, finding the plaintiffs' experts proposed adequate
models for assessing damages. He delayed ruling on another motion
to exclude the testimony of defense expert John Fritz, an actuary
in the insurance business with limited experience specific to the
case, until summary judgment or trial.

A case management conference has been set for March 28, 2017.

The Lidoderm patch is a topical antiseptic that contains 5 percent
Lidocaine as its active ingredient. It is used to treat painful
skin conditions, such as shingles. The FDA first approved it in
March 1999.

Last month, Endo agreed to submit to an injunction barring it from
striking anticompetitive pacts with generic drug makers as part of
a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

Endo spokesperson Heather Lubeski declined to comment on the class
certification ruling.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs' attorney Robert Kohn and end-payer
plaintiffs' attorney Christina Sharp did not return phone calls
seeking comment Friday.

Kohn is with Fauqi & Faruqi in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Sharp is with Girard Gibbs in San Francisco.


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Mensie" Alleges Breach of "Gap" Protection Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marian J. Mensie, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00085-DPM (E.D. Ark., February 8,
2017), arises from TMCC's alleged systemic breach of its standard
form contract related to "gap" protection for vehicle financing.
Allegedly, TMCC refused to waive the full amount of the "gap" on
Ms. Mensie's vehicle, contrary to the express terms of the GAP
Contract.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation is a financial services firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael B. Phillips, Esq.
     Brandon K. Moffitt, Esq.
     MOFFITT & PHILLIPS, PLLC
     204 Executive Court, Su
     Little Rock, AR 72205
     Phone: (501) 255-74 6100
     Fax: (866) 460-5744
     E-mail: mphillips@moffittandphillips.com
             bmoffitt@moffittandphillips.com

        - and -

     Robert A. Hom, Esq.
     Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
     HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 421-0700
     Fax: (816) 421-0899
     E-mail: rhom@hab-law.com
             jkronawitter@hab-law.com

        - and -

     Brian Timothy Meyers, Esq.
     Brian C. McCart, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS
     1125 Grand Blvd., Suite 1610
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 842-0006
     Fax: (816) 842-6623
     E-mail: btmeyers@btm-law.com
             bmccart@btm-law.com


U.S. POSTAL: "Slavin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SLAVIN, JOHN BRADHAM, AARON BRYANT, LINDA BUNCH, LAWRENCE
CASH, HOWARD CHIN, AMONICA CORNELL, TYRONE CURRY, ISHMAEL FULANI,
AYANNA GATLING, MATTIE GLOVER-HOOKER, KIMBERLY JONES HENRY, DAVID
HOOKER, RANDALL HUGHES, SR., INEASE INMON, MARY JOHNSON, THERESA
JONES, KENNETH JONES, THOMAS KENNEDY, MARLON LANGHORNE, JACKIE
LEABOUGH, KRISTEN LOUGEE, BRANDON MINES, SARAH NEAL, CHARLES
PARKER, KATRINA PARSON, HERMAN DONTE PLEASANTS, ERIC ROBINSON,
ANDREA ROBINSON, RYAN SANDERS, SHARON SAUNDERS, MARCELLA SINGH,
THEODORE STEWART, LATICIA THOMAS, WILLIAM TYLER, JR., PAUL
WHITAKER, LESTER WHITE, RONNIE WHITFIELD, AND LINDA WOODY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00134-REP (E.D. Va., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks declaratory
relief and injunctive relief; and to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the United
States Postal Service who work and/or worked at Postal Service
Branches and Stations in metro Richmond, excluding the Richmond
Main Post Office.

The Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, perform, and
have performed, functions which entitle them to receive overtime
compensation, yet Defendant has willfully refused to pay them such
overtime wages. The Defendant compensated Plaintiffs and all those
similarly situated on a uniform basis common to Plaintiffs and
other persons performing similar functions.

United States Postal Service is an independent entity of the
United States government responsible for providing postal service
in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648 4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237 0413
          E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
                  paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Suit by Disabled War Translators
-----------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in the latest class challenge to U.S. refugee policies, Refugee
Disability Benefits Oregon claims the United States illegally cut
off benefits for disabled Iraqi and Afghani interpreters who
helped the United States in the wars in their countries after
Sept. 11, 2001.

Plaintiff John Doe worked for the United States as a translator in
Iraq during the war. He resettled in Oregon with his family as
"special immigrants," but the government cut off his son's
disability benefits after eight months -- a time limit that was
changed in 2009.

Doe says the government never implemented an extension authorized
in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2009 to extend
disability benefits for Iraqi and Afghani special immigrants to
seven years -- the length of time given to other refugees.

Aided by the nonprofit Refugee Disability Benefits Oregon, Doe
sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Nancy Berryhill
and Deputy Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement Ken Tota
in Portland, Ore.

Disabled refugees are entitled to $768 per month for up to seven
years. But until the law was changed in 2009, special immigrants
like Doe could get those benefits for only eight months. Despite
the new law, the defendants refused Doe's request for extended
benefits.

Doe's attorney James Coon said it's unclear whether the government
has ever granted the longer period of disability benefits to any
special immigrant.

Despite the 2009 law and a subsequent emergency message from the
Social Security Administration directing its field offices to
honor it, the agency never updated its internal rules to reflect
the change, the complaint states.

Coon, with Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost in Portland, said it
appears that the government never has abided by the 2009 law, and
may have been shortchanging disabled Iraqi interpreters for the
past seven years.

Coon said he assumes that the problem stemmed from a simple
oversight -- a small change that got lost in the vast language of
the defense appropriations bill.

Despite its harsher policies toward immigrants, Coon said, he
hopes the Trump administration will respond to the lawsuit by
simply correcting the error.

"I don't know why they'd want politically not to help these people
who helped the government," Coon said. "And the current
administration cannot go back and change the law to deprive these
people of their benefits."


UNITED STATES: U.S. Marshals Service Class Action Closer to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that on February 24,
2017, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Administrative Judge Sharon E. Debbage Alexander granted Sanford
Heisler's motion to amend the complaint in Fogg v. Department of
Justice.  The EEOC also affirmed the expanded class definition and
authorized a discovery period extension.

Based on the Feb. 24 ruling, the class now comprises all current
and former African American Deputy U.S. marshals and detention
enforcement officers working for the DOJ from January 23, 1994
through the present.

Sanford Heisler won a revival of Fogg's initial claims in mid-
2013, securing certification of a class of African American
federal marshals dating back to July 1994.

"These decisions level the playing field for federal employees who
have routinely been treated with derision and disrespect," said
David Sanford, Chairman and co-founder of Sanford Heisler. "They
have been waiting for justice from the DOJ for 23 years.  We look
forward to a class trial in Washington, D.C. next year."

Fogg's 1994 class action complaint asserts the U.S. Marshals
Service hires white employees at a higher rate than African
American employees and its African American employees receive
disproportionately harsher punishments than their white
counterparts for similar infractions.  It also asserts the Service
intentionally delays processing discrimination complaints by
African American employees and that white employees receive
preferential access to special assignments.

                About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigation
law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco
and San Diego.  The Firm specializes in civil rights and general
public interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employment
discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending,
whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims.  Along with a
focus on class actions, the firm also represents individuals and
has achieved particular success in the representation of
executives and attorneys in employment disputes.  For more
information go to http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499-
5200 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com.


UPTAIN GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cholly" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Julie Cholly filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Julie Cholly v. Uptain Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-05030, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 20,
2017, District Judge Robert W. Gettleman denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and granted their motion to strike.

Julie Cholly, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, has brought a one count third amended putative class
action complaint (complaint) against defendants Uptain Group, Inc.
(Uptain) and Alere Health, LLC (Alere), alleging that the
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Julie Cholly v. Uptain Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8002, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

Petitioner-Plaintiff JULIE CHOLLY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS
          9760 S. Roberts Road
          Palos Hills, IL 60465-0000
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com

Respondent-Defendant UPTAIN GROUP, INC., is represented by:

          John P. Ryan, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60601-1081
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          E-mail: jryan@hinshawlaw.com

Respondent ALERE HEALTH, LLC, is represented by:

          Athanasios Papadopoulos, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          Two N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602-3801
          Telephone: (312) 269-5982
          E-mail: tpapadopoulos@neglaw.com


VCA INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Moran" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling the leading animal health care company VCA
too cheaply through an unfair process to Mars, for $93 a share or
$9.1 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Los
Angeles.

The case is captioned, FRANCES MORAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VCA, INC., ROBERT
L. ANTIN, JOHN M. BAUMER, JOHN B.C HICKERING JR., JOHN HEIL, AND
FRANK REDDICK, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01502 (C.D. Cal.,
February 23, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 291-2420
     Facsimile: (415) 484-1294


WAL-MART STORES: Shareholder Suit Over Bribes in Mexico Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
nearly five years after Wal-Mart's cover-up of bribery in Mexico
made headlines, a federal judge in Manhattan closed the book on a
class action accusing the retail giant of misleading shareholders
about the scheme.

The New York Times article blowing the whistle on the mega
retailer wound up winning a Pulitzer Prize and sparking
investigations by Congress and the Department of Justice.  Though
a securities class action by shareholder Michael Fogel has kept
lawyers working for the world's largest retailer busy for roughly
half a decade, the aftershocks have quieted considerably over the
past year.

Citing the statute of limitations, U.S. District Judge Katherine
Polk Failla dismissed the shareholder case for the third and final
time.

Though the Times article ran on April 21, 2012, it dissected an
internal investigation that Wal-Mart conducted between 2005 and
2006.

Failla said any misrepresentations made before 2008 are untimely
under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The judge also found that the
shareholders did not plausibly allege scienter -- the knowledge of
wrongdoing -- on the part of Wal-Mex or its executives.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove greeted the decision. "We
appreciate the court's careful consideration of the issues and are
pleased with the decision dismissing these claims," Hargrove said
in an email.

Shareholder Fogel's lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mex director Ernesto
Vega "knew or was reckless in not knowing bribery was taking
place" because he supervised Eduardo Juarez, the vice president of
the internal audit who is not a party to the litigation.

Judge Failla said this is hardly a smoking gun.

"These allegations fall well short of the high bar required for
plaintiff to plead adequately conscious misbehavior or
recklessness on the part of Vega," the 45-page ruling states.
"Plaintiff alleges that Ju†rez 'reported' to Vega, but this
allegation is conclusory, derived solely from Vega's job title."

The allegations against Wal-Mex CEO Scot Rank failed for the same
reason.

"Put simply, the court cannot infer scienter from Rank's position
alone," Failla wrote.

Representatives for the shareholders did not return a request for
comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported in late 2016 that the Department
of Justice investigation was unlikely to end in charges for Wal-
Mart executives.


WINTON TRANSPORTATION: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD WILLIAMS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, AND ANTHONY CASEY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. WINTON TRANSPORTATION, INC.
D/B/A UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00101-TSB (S.D. Ohio., Feb. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiffs brought the action against Winton Transportation,
Inc., for engaging in a systematic scheme of wage abuses against
its hourly paid employees in Ohio. This scheme involves, among
other things, failing to appropriately calculate employees'
compensable time and refusing to pay employees for regular and
overtime hours they worked.

Universal provides transportation services to adults and children,
transporting an average of 2,200 clients per day according to
their website. Universal employs a large amount of drivers,
including Plaintiffs, to transport this amount of clients per day.
Universal's website states that it currently employs over 250
drivers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melanie S. Bailey, Esq.
          Janet G. Abaray, Esq.
          David C. Harman, Esq.
          Justin J. Joyce, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON
          ELDREDGE HERSH, & JARDINE, P.C.
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 852 5600
          Facsimile: (513) 852 5611
          E-mail: mbailey@burgsimpson.com
                  jabaray@burgsimpson.com
                  dharman@burgsimpson.com
                  jjoyce@burgsimpson.com


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Neff" Suit Over Leak of Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN NEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! INC., and AABACO SMALL BUSINESS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00641-NC (N.D. Cal., February 8,
2017), alleges that Defendants failed to secure their users'
Personally Identifiable Information and failed to provide timely,
accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members
that their PII had been stolen on at least two occasions (on
September 22, 2016 and December 14, 2016) causing significant
damage to them.

Yahoo, In. directly and through its wholly owned subsidiaries like
Aabaco, offers various online services to consumers and small
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Azar, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     2850 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 300
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Phone: (213) 617-1200
     Fax: (212) 868-1229
     E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

        - and -

     Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
     Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
     Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 594-5300

     Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
     Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
     LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
     Dallas, TX 75219-4259
     Phone: (214) 560-2201
     Fax: (214) 560-2203
     E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
             beb@lhlaw.net



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Liability Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the
complaint filed by Titus May, et al., against Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court properly
dismissed the Plaintiffs' original complaint because it contained
insufficient, non-conclusory allegations to state a plausible
claim for relief or to put Northrop on notice of the basis for the
Plaintiffs' claims so that it could defend itself effectively.
The Ninth Circuit pointed out that the Plaintiffs' original
complaint did not identify any specific product that Northrop
itself manufactured, supplied, or was otherwise responsible for in
a way that would give rise to a claim for products liability,
which is fatal to both the Plaintiffs' negligent and strict
products liability claims.  Further, the original complaint does
not identify the names of the decedent's family members that
worked at Northrop, the specific Northrop facilities where these
family members worked, what jobs they held, or any other
information related to the circumstances of the family members'
exposure to asbestos on Northrop's facilities.  Without these
basic information, the Plaintiffs' original complaint fails to put
Northrop on notice of the basis for the Plaintiffs' premises
liability claim, the Ninth Circuit said.

However, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court erred in
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their premises
liability claim on futility grounds.  The proposed First Amended
Complaint alleges sufficient, non-conclusory allegations to
plausibly state a claim for relief under a theory of premises
liability and to put Northrop on fair notice of the basis for
Plaintiffs' claim, the Ninth Circuit pointed out.  Specifically,
the proposed First Amended Complaint identifies the particular
Northrop-controlled premises on which the decedent's family
members worked, how Northrop reasonably failed to maintain its
premises to protect its employees from airborne asbestos exposure,
how the decedent's husband was exposed to airborne asbestos
through the course of his employment with Northrop, and how the
decedent was ultimately harmed by asbestos originating from
Northrop's facilities through take-home exposure.  Because the
proposed First Amended Complaint sufficiently states a claim
against Northrop for premises liability, the district court erred
in denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint on futility
grounds, the Ninth Circuit said.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit
reverses the judgment of dismissal on the Plaintiffs' premises
liability claim and remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated February 23, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/89degJ from Leagle.com.

The appeals case is TITUS MAY; BARRY MAY; JEFFREY MAY; TRACI MAY;
KELLI CHAVEZ; GREGORY MAYO; LORI MOBERLY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and as
successor in interest to The Grumman Aircraft Engineering
Corporation and Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 15-56219 (9th Cir.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate OK'd to Amend Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Bolton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, alleged in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, that as an inmate plumber, he was instructed to
remove asbestos-containing materials without safety equipment.  As
a result, the Plaintiff developed symptoms related to asbestos
exposure for which he was subsequently seen by Dr. Owolabi.
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Owolabi "refused" to acknowledge the
Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and ordered allergy medication,
which only made the Plaintiff's symptoms worse.

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which
relief may be granted, but gave the Plaintiff leave to file a
first amended complaint.

The case is WAYNE BOLTON, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-SKO (PC)(E.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 21, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/qj8uq8 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Whistleblower Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho stayed the whistleblower case captioned
THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Plaintiff, v. IDAHO FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 91, Defendant, Case
No. 4:15-cv-00019-BLW (D. Idaho), until a decision has been issued
in parallel administrative proceedings before a Department of
Labor Administrative Law Judge.

On May 31, 2011, Penny Weymiller filed a whistleblower complaint
with the U.S. Secretary of Labor, alleging that the District
retaliated against her for raising concerns with its asbestos
removal plans.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
investigated Weymiller's claims under the whistleblower provisions
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7622.  OSHA granted relief
against the District, who then requested a de novo hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge.  The parties participated in a four-
day trial before an ALJ in February 2016.  However, a final
decision has yet to be issued.

The Secretary of Labor simultaneously investigated Weymiller's
complaint under the whistleblower provisions of the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986. As a result of that
investigation, the Secretary of Labor filed the present civil
action in federal court on behalf of Weymiller, pursuant to AHERA,
15 U.S.C. Section 2651(a). A trial in this matter is currently set
to commence on April 3, 2017.

Judge Winmill held that a brief stay of the proceedings is
warranted, noting that there is potential the administrative
proceedings will have preclusive effect on the case.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order dated
February 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/KO87vP from
Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Brinkerhoff, U.S.
Department of Labor.

Idaho Falls School District No. 91, Defendant, represented by Bret
Allen Walther, Anderson Julian & Hull LLP & Brian K. Julian,
ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL.

Penny Weymiller, Intervenor, represented by Jonathan W. Harris,
BAKER & HARRIS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Narrows Utica's Diversity Suit vs. FFIC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Utica Mutual Insurance Company commenced a diversity action
against defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, seeking to
enforce the terms of its reinsurance contracts.  The Plaintiff
seeks damages in the amount of nearly $29 million for amounts
billed through August 31, 2009, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and declaratory relief based on the defendant's alleged breach of
the reinsurance contracts and breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing.  FFIC counterclaims for rescission based on the
plaintiff's alleged intentional and/or negligent rescission.

This case involves a dispute over $35 million which Utica claims
FFIC owes it under its reinsurance contracts.  FFIC argues it does
not owe Utica any money because Utica breached provisions in the
reinsurance contracts.  Utica issued primary liability insurance
policies to Goulds from 1966 through 1972.  These seven primary
policies have not been located and one of the main issues in this
case is whether those policies contained aggregate limits for
bodily injury.  Goulds became the subject of thousands of asbestos
bodily injury claims, with the first suits naming Goulds in 1997.

FFIC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (to dismiss
Counts II and III), saying these are duplicative of Count I and
are not independent causes of action.  In Count I, Utica complains
that FFIC breached the Certificates by not paying its claims and
seeks damages in the form of the sums due under the Certificates
through August 31, 2009. In Count II, Utica alleges that FFIC
asked for irrelevant information and ignored its billings,
inquiries, and repeated requests for payment, thereby violating
FFIC's duty to deal with Utica in utmost good faith. For damages
under Count II, Utica seeks attorneys' fees and other costs in
connection with this lawsuit. In Count III, Utica seeks a
declaration that FFIC is obligated to pay for bills after August
31, 2009, pursuant to the Certificates.

Judge David N. Hurd of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
FFIC's motion for judgment, and dismissed Count III.

According to Judge Hurd, "Count III seeks payment for billings
subsequent to August 31, 2009.  The declaratory judgment sought in
Count III will not clarify or settle the legal issues involved in
this case.  The declaration sought, that FFIC breached the
Certificates and that FFIC is obligated to make payment to Utica
for subsequent billings, will be addressed in Count I, the breach
of contract claim.  Nor will a declaratory judgment offer relief
from uncertainty because resolution of the breach of contract
claim will offer that relief.  Therefore, Count III is duplicative
of Count I and it is proper to decline jurisdiction over
plaintiff's request for declaratory relief in Count III."

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter
Defendant, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter
Claimant, No. 6:09-CV-853 (DNH/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order dated
February 24, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ekEB3g from
Leagle.com.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Syed S.
Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Walter
J. Andrews, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel R.
Thies, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice, Patrick M.
McDermott, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice, Thomas D.
Cunningham, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice & William M.
Sneed, Sidley, Austin Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary A.
Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary
A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, Walter J. Andrews,
Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott,
Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John B. Williams, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice & Mary
A. Lopatto, Williams, Lopatto Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton, Williams Law Firm, Walter J. Andrews,
Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice & Patrick M. McDermott,
Hunton, Williams Law Firm, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Wrongful Death Claim Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In JANIS KELLY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John
K. Kelly, Appellant, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, UNION CARBIDE CORP.,
PREMIX-MARBLETITE MANUFACTURING CO., and IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES,
INC., Appellees, No. 4D15-4666 (Fla. App.), the District Court of
Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, was presented for review a
question on whether the Florida Wrongful Death Act supersedes the
common law requirement that a spouse must be married to the
decedent before the date of the decedent's injury to recover
damages for loss of consortium.

Stated another way, the Appeals Court was asked whether the
legislative enactment, giving the estate's representatives and
survivors a remedy not found in the common law, "explicitly,"
"clearly," and "unequivocally" abrogate the common law
requirements to recover consortium damages when those damages are
awarded under the Wrongful Death Act.

Because there can be no change in the common law unless the
statute is "explicit and clear in that regard" and the Wrongful
Death Act does not "explicitly," "clearly," and "unequivocally"
abrogate the common law rule, the Appeals Court holds that a
spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time of the
decedent's injury may not recover consortium damages as part of a
wrongful death suit.

The Appeals Court held that despite the clear intention that the
Wrongul Death Act allow for the recovery of consortium damages
after the decedent's death, nothing in the statute abrogates the
common law marriage before injury rule.  Therefore, because the
legislature did not explicity and clearly overrule the common law
limitation on loss of consortium when enacting the Wrongful Death
Act, the Appeals Court held that the common law marriage before
injury rule was incorporated into the Act.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court finds that the trial court did not
err in entering an order granting Georgia-Pacific, LLC's motion to
dismiss a wrongful death claim filed by Janis Kelly, the wife of
John Kelly, in their asbestos-related lawsuit. Therefore, the
Appeals Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 22, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/nSgSIW from Leagle.com.

Paulo R. Lima, Juan P. Bauta II, and Amanda A. Kessler of The
Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Marie A. Borland of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, and
Stuart A. Weinstein, Esq. -- sweinstein@sbwh.law -- and Laura E.
Eggnatz, Esq. -- leggnatz@sbwh.law -- of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman
& Hermann, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee Georgia-Pacific, LLC.

Matthew J. Conigliaro, Esq. -- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, and Ryan S. Cobbs, Esq. -
- rcobbs@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, for appellee Union Carbide Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Setting Aside Verdict in "Juni" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARY JUNI,
ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. ET
AL., Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. THE
COALITION FOR LITIGATION JUSTICE, INC., THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF NEW YORK
STATE AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Amici Curiae,
190315/12, 2458, 2457 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, was required to
address whether a plaintiff who seeks damages for contracting
mesothelioma based on exposure to a defendant's asbestos-
containing products must satisfy the standards expressed in Parker
v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 N.Y.3d 434 [2006]) and Cornell v 360 W. 51st
St. Realty, LLC (22 N.Y.3d 762 [2014]) by offering evidence that,
if it does not provide an exact mathematical quantification of
that exposure, at least provides some "scientific expression"
(Parker at 449) of the level of exposure to toxins in defendant's
products that was sufficient to have caused the disease.

The Plantiff's decedent, Arthur Juni, commenced a personal injury
action due to his mesothelioma allegedly caused by claimed
exposure to asbestos-containing products while he worked as an
auto mechanic.  Juni died on March 16, 2014, after which his
widow, Mary Juni, who also has a loss of consortium claim, was
substituted as administratrix for Juni's estate.  The appeal
concerns only the trial of claims against defendant Ford Motor
Company, based on Juni's exposure to asbestos over the years he
worked on the brakes, clutches, and manifold gaskets of Ford
vehicles, during which work, plaintiff says, asbestos dust was
released.

After a trial in which a jury returned a verdict in the
plaintiff's favor, the trial court granted Ford's motion to set
aside the verdict.

The Appellate Division held that the evidence presented by the
plaintiff here was insufficient because it failed to establish
that the decedent's mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to a
sufficient quantity of asbestos in friction products sold or
distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company.  The Appellate
Division pointed out that the Plaintiff's expects effectively
testified only in terms of an increased risk and association
between asbestos and mesothelioma, but failed to either quantify
the decedent's exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific
expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford's products.

The Appellate Division held that its dissenting colleague suggests
that the proof in asbestos cases need not be analyzed using the
same criteria as those we use to analyze exposure in other toxic
tort cases, namely, the quantification or other "scientific
expression of exposure" required by Parker.  The dissent also
suggests that applying the same criteria would set an
insurmountable standard for asbestos claims.  However, the
Appellate Division said there is no valid distinction to be made
between the difficulty of establishing exposure to, say, benzene
in gasoline and exposure to asbestos.  In each type of matter, a
foundation must be made to support an expert's conclusion
regarding causation, the Appellate Division concluded.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County
(Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 3, 2015, in favor of Ford, is
affirmed, without costs.  The appeal from the order of the same
court and Justice, entered April 13, 2015, should be dismissed,
without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/u3bfOW from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Alani Golanski of counsel), for
appellant.

McGuire Woods LLP, New York (J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq. --
twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- of the bar of the State of Virginia,
admitted pro hac vice, and Tennille J. Checkovich, Esq. --
tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- of counsel), and Aaronson
Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Nancy L. Pennie,
Esq. -- nlpennie@arfdlaw.com -- and Oded Burger, Esq., of
counsel), for respondent.

Malaby & Bradley, LLC, New York (Robert C. Malaby, Esq. --
rcmalaby@mblaw.net -- and Maryellen Connor, Esq. --
mconnor@mblaw.net -- of counsel), for amici curiae.

Linda Popejoy, Washington, D.C., and William L. Anderson,
Washington, D.C., for the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.,
amicus curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyers Seek Up to $41MM From Halliburton Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reported that Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti LLC lawyers who reached a $100
million investor settlement with Halliburton over its asbestos
liability disclosures told a Texas federal court they would seek
up to $40.8 million after a decade's litigation and two trips to
the U.S. Supreme Court.

The settlement, which energy giant Halliburton Co. had revealed
late last year, puts an end to one of the oldest securities fraud
class actions still kicking around in U.S. courts.

The case is Erica P John Fund Inc et al v. Halliburton Company et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152 (N.D. Tex.).  The case is before Judge
Barbara M.G. Lynn.  The case was filed June 3, 2002.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Provides Update on "Bell"
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Penhallegon, Esq. -- kpenhallegon@milesstockbridge.com --
at Miles & Stockbridge, in an article, provided updates on the
status of Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
following a previous blog post examining the court's order
enunciating a "third view" on the so-called "bare metal defense"
for asbestos litigation. Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., CV-
15-6394, Africk, L., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137547 (E.D. La. Oct.
4, 2016).

When the court issued its order on October 4, 2016 it provided the
parties with an opportunity to re-brief the motions for summary
judgment pursuant to the framework for analyzing the bare metal
defense as described by the court. On December 21, 2016, the
defendants filed their motions for summary judgment applying the
court's newly set forth "third view" on the bare metal defense.
Plaintiffs filed responses to those motions on January 23, 2017.
Accordingly, the issue will now be ripe for the court's decision
on these motions for summary judgment by applying its so-called
"third view" on the bare metal defense. The court's decision on
these motions could have a significant impact on how courts across
the country analyze the bare metal defense going forward.

Ruling on "Every Exposure" Theory of Causation

Just days after issuing its order on its "third view" of the bare
metal defense, the Bell court made another significant ruling by
excluding plaintiffs' experts who attempted to rely on the "each
and every exposure" theory of causation. The defendants filed
various motions to exclude Dr. Richard Kradin, Dr. Terry Kraus and
Mr. Frank Parker III because, among other reasons, each relied on
the "each and every exposure" theory for determining causation.
Various iterations of the "each and every" exposure theory have
become increasingly popular in recent years as plaintiffs' experts
attempt to support a causation opinion regarding the plaintiffs'
low-dose exposures to asbestos from various products. In a
nutshell, the theory is that each defendant who's product the
plaintiff may have worked with or around is equally liable,
regardless of the evidence regarding the quantitative dose of
exposure.

In Bell, the court held that "the each and every exposure theory
'is not an acceptable approach for a causation expert to take'
because it is 'nothing more than the ipse dixit of the expert.'"
The court noted the experts' subtle shift in testimony such that
the experts opine only that each and every "significant" exposure
to asbestos caused the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. However, the
court dispensed with that theory by saying that it "sees no
material difference between the 'every exposure' theory and the
'every significant exposure' theory." As the court explained, the
theory is essentially one of general causation only and the
experts "provide no testable methodology for determining whether
[plaintiff] is one of the members of the population for which a
particular exposure level attributable to a particular defendant's
products caused mesothelioma or whether Mr. Bell is one of the
many members of the population for which a certain marginal
exposure level does not in fact result in mesothelioma."
Accordingly, the court concluded that the experts' opinions
"impermissibly rest on little more than the experts' ipse dixit."

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's
Order excluding the three experts and briefing has been completed
on that motion.

Conclusion

As the litigation continues in Bell, the court continues to make
significant rulings that could have an impact on crucial issues
impacting asbestos litigation nationwide. The court's ultimate
decision on both the "bare metal" issue and the "every exposure"
issue could play a significant role in shaping asbestos litigation
moving forward.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Asbestos Trial Reconvenes
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported
that a Madison County asbestos trial against Hennessy Industries
reconvened on Feb. 27 in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs'
courtroom.

Hennessy is represented in the case by Jim Lowrey of Gordon &
Rees.

Plaintiffs Janet and Stanley Urban are represented by Tom Hart and
Allyson Romani of Shrader & Associates.

The Urbans are from Michigan, and all of Stanley Urban's alleged
exposures occurred in Michigan.

The Urbans filed their complaint in March 2013, alleging Stanley
Urban was exposed to asbestos-containing products while working at
various auto dealerships 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.

Urban was diagnosed with mesothelioma both above and below his
diaphragm in January 2013.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-437


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambodian Labor Ministry to Examine Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kong Meta and Yesenia Amaro, writing for The Phnom Penh Post,
reported that the Cambodian Ministry of Labour announced the
formation of a new working group tasked with gathering data on the
precise prevalence of asbestos and its adverse effects in the
Kingdom.

Minister Ith Sam Heng said the group will compile data in order to
prepare a national action plan and an effective prevention program
on the risks of asbestos.

Dr Leng Tong, director of the ministry's Department of
Occupational Safety and Health, said the group will gather
information on asbestos products imported to the Kingdom and how
many workers fall ill due to asbestos.

It will also receive training from other countries, such as
Australia, which has banned the use of asbestos.

Asbestos causes asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer, with
construction workers facing higher risks. There are an estimated
200,000 construction workers in Cambodia, but how many have been
exposed to asbestos is not yet known.

"In the future, we'll have to [ban] it for the safety of the
workers," Tong said. The ministry in 2015 was already working on a
study that it had planned to take to the government to ask for an
asbestos ban. However, Tong said the study was small and there
were limited resources.

Sam Heng said the ILO, WHO and civil society would also be
involved.

UN data show that Cambodia imported some 29 tonnes of "fabricated
asbestos fibres" and "mixtures with a basis of asbestos" in 2015,
while much more enters as part of pre-fabricated construction
materials.

Sok Kin, leader of the Building and Wood Workers Trade Union
Federation of Cambodia, said his union was one of the three in the
working group. He said construction workers handling asbestos
often don't even have access to masks or gloves.

"I hope the government will ban the import and will stop using
asbestos, like other countries," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Group Exploring Litigation Scandals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Warner, writing for Huffington Post, reported that like no
doubt many other ideas, the "Asbestos Double-Victims Workgroup"
grew out of an after-party conversation at "The Reliable Source,"
the National Press Club bar, in Washington, D.C. Maybe two dozen
people gathered after watching a work-in-progress screening of the
Paul Johnson Films documentary "UnSettled: Inside the Strange
World of Asbestos Lawsuits."

Not surprisingly, like nearly everyone else in D.C. last December,
we were discussing the pending Trump Era, and, more specifically,
how personal injury litigation would be different, including the
asbestos issues raised by the UnSettled movie. The consensus: All
hell is about to break loose.

To understand just how hot things might get, you might begin with
a North Carolina bankruptcy case called "Garlock" that figures
prominently in the film. Forbes magazine explained Garlock: A
federal judge ". . . allowed Garlock to conduct discovery on 15
settled cases, and discovered plaintiff lawyers had failed to
disclose evidence in all 15."

Based in large part on that research, the judge reduced the
potential liability for mesothelioma cases, an asbestos-caused
cancer, by a billion -- with a 'B' -- dollars.

Information from Garlock has already rippled through the asbestos
landscape, prompting several civil racketeering lawsuits. The
Garlock company has already sued some victims' firms on civil
racketeering grounds, and the plaintiffs' firms settled that case.
There will be more.

Meanwhile last summer, The American Legion, the nation's largest
veterans' advocacy organization, passed its first formal
resolution supporting bankruptcy trust transparency. It recently
doubled-down, passing the resolution a second time so it was valid
for the new congressional session.

(At this writing, the federal transparency law, called the FACT
Act for "furthering asbestos claims transparency, is moving
through the U.S. House of Representative and will likely pass.)

In a powerful scene from UnSettled, a former American Legion
national commander emotionally accuses attorneys of fraud. His
concern is that plaintiffs' attorneys prompt asbestos victims to
tell one story to some of the 100-or-so bankruptcy trust funds,
then another in civil court cases -- exactly the problem found in
Garlock. That means the funds are depleted and veterans are
shortchanged.

Garlock ripples have already hit the insurance industry. Several
"subrogation" actions are under way, including such big-name
groups as Humana, Aetna, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and even
hospital networks operated by Johns Hopkins and Tufts. Those
groups contend they need the names of plaintiffs who have
recovered money from the trusts so they (the medical groups) can
be reimbursed for medical expenses they paid to cover the
illnesses related to asbestos.

There are concerns that many families may not have made those
payments. Perhaps worse, there are similar requirements to repay
Medicaid that may have not been met.

I've long worried about the "Perjury Pawns" in all this. The idea
is that most victims and their families, facing death, pretty much
just go along with their lawyers. There's a famous "coaching memo"
that illustrates how they get coached to remember companies that
are still solvent, and to ignore companies that are protected by
bankruptcy -- although they might file claims against those
companies as well.

Which brings us back to President Trump. In UnSettled, it is noted
that President Obama played golf with one of the big-name partners
involved in Garlock even after the controversy surfaced, although
the asbestos scandal was hardly mainstream media news. It's no
secret that the plaintiff's bar funds much of the Democratic party
and that Republicans tend to back the business side of the
asbestos equation.

There are questions: Are there opportunities for Medicaid
repayment? What happens if families learn that some of their jury
awards, trust payments or settlement monies should have been paid
back to medical providers? Is that their fault, or their lawyer's?

Of course, there are other, perhaps more straightforward, double-
victims of the system. Some might even argue that insurance
companies and American taxpayers are "victims" when required
medical repayments are not met. And then there's California
attorney Mike Lampe, himself a trial lawyer and the hero of
UnSettled, who fought a case for about a decade that began with a
relatively minor claim against his brother's auto dealership.

Eventually, Mr. Lampe wound up working with the very family that
first sued him -- and against their former asbestos-practice
attorney. That led to discovery of what Lampe calls a corrupt
business practice -- he thinks it's a corrupt business model and
doubts it's exclusive to this one case.

There is, of course, a tragic irony here. Mesothelioma, the
asbestos cancer that's always fatal, can take decades to develop.
Veterans who thought they had survived their service learn one day
that, instead, they just had a silent wound that would claim their
life a bit later. Now, the families of those folks may very well
join others to find out that asbestos has, once again, remained
silent until it doesn't.

So to explore all this, we are forming the Asbestos Double-Victims
Workgroup (AD-VWG). The National Courts Monitor, the civil
litigation website where I'm publisher, will help organize initial
efforts.

Frankly, we actually hope that we're wrong about all this.

However, with all the Garlock revelations, the civil racketeering
lawsuits and all those insurance issues -- and growing interest in
those Medicaid payments -- it's more likely we're just noticing
the tip of a very messy iceberg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Danger to Public from Asbestos in Pipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kieran O'Mahony, writing for Southern Star, reported that Irish
Water has confirmed that they are not in a position to unveil a
completion date for work on the removal of abestos pipes on the
network between Clonakilty and Rosscarbery.

'Rosscarbery is served from the Clonakilty water supply scheme and
to date EUR3.8m for the replacement of 27.2km has been approved on
the Clonakilty scheme by Irish Water,' said a spokesperson. 'This
includes EUR129,000 to replace almost 1km of water mains along the
N71 at Cahermore, which is the main supply to Rosscarbery.'

In relation to asbestos in the pipes in Rosscarbery, Irish Water
said that there is no danger to the public and pointed out that
asbestos is only hazardous when it is airborne (dust) and that the
pipes present no hazard when the asbestos pipe is in service
(wet).

'All works to replace these pipes are carried out in accordance
with approved health and safety procedures for working with
material containing asbestos.'

An Irish Water spokesperson also added that Rosscarbery wasn't
unique in having asbestos in its water pipes. 'The use of asbestos
cement pipes was commonplace throughout the country until the mid
1980s and as a result a significant portion of the old watermains
infrastructure comprises asbestos-cement pipes.'

Cork South West Fine Gael TD Jim Daly said he was well aware of
the issues with the water pipe network at Rosscarbery and that the
asbestos pipe issue is a nationwide problem.

'The primary issue, however, for me is the water quality and
pressure which is being delivered to the user and I want to dispel
the myth that asbestos piping places any threat to public health,
as this is not the case,' he told The Southern Star.

'Asbestos dust only become a threat to public health when it
becomes airborne and inhaled,' said Deputy Daly.

'West Cork is receiving unprecedented investment in water
infrastructure with EUR12m currently being invested in the
Skibbereen water supply project and EUR5m in the Cape Clear
network. The Rosscarbery area falls just outside the Skibbereen
upgrade and is high priority for upcoming funding.'

However, Fine Gael Senator Tim Lombard said the problems the
residents of Rosscarbery are experiencing are 'totally
unacceptable'.

'The supply was not available on approximately six to eight
separate occasions during 2016 and on three separate instances
between January 12th and 16th,' he said.

'Unfortunately for the residents of Rosscarbery, any project of
this scale takes times for proper planning and preparation to be
executed, but I want to assure them that I will continue to
communicate with Irish Water as to ensure that this project is a
priority and the issue is resolved as soon as possible.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Redditch Schools Still Have Toxic Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Sharpe, writing for Redditch & Alcester Advertiser, reported
that almost 20 schools in the Redditch area still contain asbestos
-- despite it killing about 2,000 people in the UK every year, the
Advertiser can reveal.

A Freedom of Information request to Worcestershire County Council
uncovered a list of 131 community schools across Worcestershire
that still hold the toxic substance, not including academies.

In the Redditch area, this includes:

Batchley First School

Beoley First School

Birchensale Middle School

Oak Hill First School

Holyoakes Field First School

Moon's Moat First School

Roman Way First School

Tenacres First School

Woodrow First School

Pitcheroak School

St Luke's CE First School

St Stephen's CE First School

St George's CE First School

Inkberrow First School

Feckenham CE First School

The Forge Secondary Short Stay School

The Beacon Primary North East PRU

The Beacon Primary North West PRU

Meadow Green Primary School (Wythall)

But the council has insisted that removing the material in some
schools would entail demolishing the building altogether, with the
only possible response to leave the danger contained in the
structure.

A council spokesman said: "Asbestos was formerly in common use as
a building material, typically found in cement boards or sheets,
roofing materials or as insulation. Asbestos, when bonded in
cement, is relatively stable but becomes dangerous where it gets
damaged or the fibres are disturbed.

"The council has had a programme of asbestos surveys and removal,
encapsulation and remediation works for many years and this is
under continual review. Although the majority of friable asbestos
has been dealt with there is still a legacy of asbestos in places
that are difficult to access or are part of the structure of the
building; removing the latter would probably entail demolition and
rebuild.

"It is and it remains Worcestershire County Council policy to
remove asbestos materials that are likely to be damaged or
disturbed and this is routinely done during major refurbishment
and maintenance works."

The council emphasised it is complying with asbestos regulations
and claims there have been no incidents of asbestos exposure in
Redditch in the last five years

Asbestos-related diseases rarely show symptoms until between 25
and 50 years after the person was exposed to it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-tippers Jailed After Dumping Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Humphries, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that two
brazen fly-tippers who dumped toxic asbestos near a dance school
were jailed after the council spied on them with secret cameras.

'Man and van' team George Parry and David Smith were paid to get
rid of rubbish, including building materials and an old couch --
and chose Back Broadway in Clubmoor as their dumping ground.

Liverpool City Council used controversial legislation, under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), to install
hidden cameras -- and caught the pair red handed.

Parry, 55, was jailed for 20 weeks at Liverpool Magistrates' Court
after pleading guilty to four charges of depositing controlled
waste on public land and banned from driving for 12 months.

He has previous convictions for robbery, burglary and assault.

His close pal Smith, 53, who lived with Parry in Aspes Road, West
Derby, was jailed for 12 weeks after admitting the same offences.

The court heard the pair dumped asbestos just a few metres from
the entrance gate of Jade School for Dance at Back Broadway, an
area used by children.

Marie Shaw, prosecuting on behalf of the council, told the court:
"There had been numerous complaints from members of the public
regarding the dumping of waste in this area.

"A decision was made by Liverpool City Council to monitor the
area, and over the next few months waste was being deposited in
the area of Back Broadway."

Ms Shaw said officers investigating the incident monitored CCTV
and noticed a white Ford Transit van appeared to turn down the
street, behind the shops on Broadway, around the time waste was
being deposited.

The court heard the street was clear from around 6pm on March 17
last year, but when officers visited the area at 8pm they found
bags of builder's rubble, tiles and large amounts of garden waste.

Ms Shaw said the CCTV footage was checked and the suspect van was
noticed turning into the street at 7.21pm.

Examination of the rubbish led to the address of a couple, who
told council officers they had paid a man to get rid of the waste
after seeing an advert on the website Gumtree.

Further investigations led to the identification of the van in the
Fazakerley area, and the registration plate was passed to
Merseyside Police.

The pair struck again on April 25, when six bags of crumbed
asbestos, asbestos roof sheeting and bags of building waste were
left in the same street.

Ms Shaw said the council were granted permission under the Ripa
act to install hidden cameras in Back Broadway, which caught the
two defendants red handed on May 23 and May 29.

Over those two occasions the cameras caught Parry and Smith
casually dumping a large pile of wood, building materials,
fluorescent light bulbs and a large brown leather couch.

The pair were eventually arrested and the van was seized and
crushed.

Fly tipping incident in Norris Green (Photo: Liverpool Echo)
Colin Rowson, defending Parry, said his client had suffered with
alcoholism and did not realise the waste contained asbestos.

He said: "I don't think for one moment if either party had known
what the waste consisted of, it would have been deposited."

Frank Roe, defending Smith, said his client had also suffered
alcohol issues and was in poor health.

He said: "Things started to go wrong for him last year when his
long-term partner died. He was then effectively thrown out of the
home he had for quite a long time due to financial problems."

Mr Roe said Smith had not driven the van, and had not led the
enterprise.

District Judge Andrew Shaw, passing sentence, told the pair: "Fly-
tipping is a curse of modern society.

"In this case, for financial gain, you dumped rubbish including
crushed asbestos in a semi-residential area. You had no concern
for any local residents. I'm told you didn't know what you were
dumping. That is no excuse; you didn't care."

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said fly-tipping is
estimated to cost the authority more than ú1 million per year.

In response the council is set to double the number of mobile
teams from two to four, with more emphasis on "finding and fining
those responsible."

Councillor Steve Munby, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, said:
"Fly tipping has a huge environmental and financial cost and must
be fought tooth and nail. Today's ruling is a warning to anyone
thinking of fly tipping that we will always take any action we
can, including destroying your vehicle."

The council urges anyone with information about fly-tippers to
anonymously contact Liverpool City Council's Street Scene Team on
0151 233 3001.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Being Handled by Unskilled Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Cormack, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that
Australia's peak professional body for the painting industry has
expressed serious concerns about tradespeople who have been issued
qualifications to handle toxic materials without the requisite
training.

The National Institute of Painting and Decorating (NIPD) raised
questions about the validity of painting qualifications issued by
Get Qualified Australia, a vocational education provider, which
was recently stripped of registration for three of its training
organisations.

The education consultancy assists job seekers in obtaining
qualifications to recognise prior learning in a range of
industries, linking them with its own training organisations and
others.

"I have spoken to at least three painters who obtained a
Certificate III in Painting and Decorating [from GQA] and are not
adequately qualified or competent," said Daniel Wurm, managing
director of (NIPD).

"It is a requirement that all painters who do a Certificate III in
Painting are trained to identify and handle asbestos and lead
paint, both of which are toxic and hazardous to the community."

Mr Wurm said he had spoken with one painter on a 457 working visa
who was granted recognition of prior learning, despite having
limited experience.

"He had received no training and did not even know what lead paint
was, or how to identify asbestos," he said.

"This is a tremendous risk . . . how many painters got their
certificates this way?"

In a telephone call to Get Qualified, Mr Wurm inquired about
whether he could obtain a Certificate III in Painting and
Decorating, if he had no prior experience with lead paint or
asbestos and "did not know" what they were.

Mr Wurm said he was told it would be no issue that he had not
"dealt with lead paint" and that he would just need to "do a bit
of online research . . . [to] get a bit of knowledge".

A Get Qualified spokesman said it was seeking a review of its
deregistration in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and did not
wish to "comment publicly on matters which may come before the
Tribunal."

Get Qualified and its sole director Adam Wadi will appear in the
Federal Court in an action brought by the  Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission over alleged misleading and unconscionable
conduct.

Mr Wurm said he was most concerned for tradespeople "who think
they are qualified...if they haven't been trained to identify
asbestos, imagine what it's doing to them."

He said questionable qualifications would only increase the number
of unskilled painters working in the industry, a figure he
believes has grown since the NSW government relaxed painting
licensing laws in 2015.

The changes, which industry bodies have criticised, removed
licensing requirements for painting work on home interiors,
including work under $5000.

It prompted a coalition between the peak bodies representing
employers, contractors, trainers and accredited colleges in the
industry; who said they had no say in the decision.

"We didn't know they were going to make those changes, we were not
consulted," said Therese Lauriola, chief executive of the Master
Painters Association NSW.

"There is a significant risk in having unlicensed painters working
on properties that contain lead and asbestos. They think they can
just sand it, drill it, cut it, because they have not had the
training."

Ms Lauriola said the association was equally concerned about
registered training organisations issuing unwarranted
qualifications.

"We call it 'ticking and flicking', those organisations who are
giving people qualifications they really shouldn't have," she
said. "It's disastrous for the industry. People think they are
getting qualified painters and in some instances they are not."

Ms Lauriola suggested an additional "continuing professional
development" course for painters, which could ensure they were
qualified in all requisite areas.

A spokesman for the NSW Fair Trading said the Master Painters
Association, and others, were given a lengthy period in which to
contribute to the consultation process, however "no concerns were
raised".

"The reforms are intended to remove red tape that may
unnecessarily stifle innovation and competition," he said.

In the 12 months from January 2014, a total of 184 complaints were
received about painting and decorating services generally.

Since January 2015 Fair Trading has received 113 complaints about
painting and decorating work under the $5000 threshold.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Old Maintenance Shop
-------------------------------------------------------
John Bear, writing for Boulder County News, reported that
Nederland officials will seek bids for professional asbestos
removal services after the substance was discovered during the
course of decommissioning the town's old maintenance shop.

During an analysis of the shop, which was part of the town's
application for obtaining a state demolition permit, asbestos was
discovered in several of the buildings that make up the shop,
according to a news release.

The building has been sealed after an assessment by an outside
contractor revealed the presence of asbestos in roofing materials,
window glazing, vermiculite insulation and sink undercoating. Any
material with more than 1 percent asbestos is considered to be an
asbestos-containing product.

The shop, located at 750 W. Fifth St., was built in 1954. The town
opened its new shop on Friday.

Asbestos is a fiber that was used in construction until the late
1970s, and it has been shown to cause some types of cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in UK Schools A Serious Problem
---------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Turner, writing for The Telegraph, reported that asbestos
in schools is a "serious" problem which could threaten the health
of children, a Government report has found, as it concluded that
thousands of schools are failing to follow safety guidelines.

One fifth of schools which responded to an official survey were
found to be "not fully compliant" with asbestos procedures,
leaving over a million children potentially exposed to dangerous
fibres.

Of those, over 100 schools  were deemed a "significant cause for
concern" and required government intervention. The Department for
Education (DfE) said it emailed those schools and received
"reassurances" the asbestos is now safe.
School leaders have branded the report's findings "deeply
concerning", and urged the DfE to instigate a works programme that
would see asbestos removed from all schools.

Even low levels of exposure to asbestos fibres can cause both lung
cancer, as well as cancer of the lining of the lung called
mesothelioma.

Most victims die within 18 months of diagnosis, but it often does
not appear until around 40 years after the person first breathes
in the dust.

The report, published by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), found
that around 20 per cent of schools were were "not fully compliant"
with asbestos procedures "in that they did not have fully
documented plans, processes and procedures in place at the time of
the data collection, or did not know if asbestos was present."

The EFA is part of the DfE and oversees funding for all schools,
academies and colleges in England.

A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that "asbestos
is a significant, and potentially dangerous, issue in many
buildings, including most schools".

The NAO report also noted that "the department does not collate
information on the number of school buildings affected".

According to the National Union of Teachers, 319 teachers have
died from mesothelioma since 1980. It is estimated that for every
teacher's death, nine children will die, meaning over 100 people
will die every year in the UK as a result of exposure when they
were at school.

"These results seriously call into question the DfE's fundamental
assumption that asbestos can be managed safely left in situ, as
clearly this is not happening in too many cases," said Chris
Keates, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT.

"Asbestos is lethal. The only safe asbestos is removed asbestos.
The DfE must bring forward proposals for the phased removal of all
asbestos in schools without delay."

A voluntary survey was sent to schools by the Government between
January and March last year, but only a quarter of schools
responded.

This means that true number of schools who do not comply with
asbestos safety procedures is likely to be far higher, as the
report notes that there may be a "selection bias" towards schools
that "already manage asbestos well".

Asbestos is lethal. The only safe asbestos is removed asbestos.
Chris Keates, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT
Ms Keates added: "It is reasonable to assume that schools who know
they are not compliant would be less likely to respond, therefore
the true number who are failing to comply could be substantially
higher, with hundreds of schools putting pupils and teachers at
risk by failing to manage asbestos effectively."

Three quarters of schools contain asbestos, but the Health and
Safety Executive say that it only presents a risk if it is
disturbed or damaged, which risks fibres being released into the
atmosphere.

A report on asbestos in schools by the All Party Parliamentary
Group on Occupational Health and Safety in 2012 recommended that
the Government set up programme to remove asbestos from all
schools.

It concluded: "It is clear that, at present, there are serious
deficiencies in the way that asbestos is managed in schools."

A DfE spokesperson said: "The health and safety of children and
staff in our schools is vital -- that's why we are investing ú23
billion in school buildings by 2021. This will help ensure
asbestos is managed safely and that the amount in school buildings
continues to reduce over time.

"We have published updated guidance for schools on how to manage
asbestos and the results of a survey which showed the majority of
respondents have procedures in place. We have followed up with the
schools which responded and did not have these procedures in
place, and they have all provided assurances they are now
compliant with Health and Safety Executive regulations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indigenous Residents Want Health Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
The National Reporting Team's Jane Bardon reported that residents
in the remote Northern Territory town of Tennant Creek are calling
on the NT or federal governments to offer their children health
checks to determine whether they are suffering from asbestos
exposure.

For years the children unknowingly played in a vandalised building
containing asbestos purchased by the town's largest Aboriginal
corporation with Commonwealth money.

Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation bought the building
eight years ago with part of a $1.2 million Federal Government
grant for community centres and housing.

Residents now want answers about why the government didn't ensure
Julalikari put the building into use, which they feel would have
prevented it being vandalised and broken apart by children.

"Because the structure was all smashed up into tiny bits, as you
can see those bits on the ground, kids were playing in here for
months and months using it as a cubby house," resident Linda
Turner said.

Christine Morton lives with her extended family across the road
from the building, and says she is very worried that asbestos
effects may show up in her grandchildren years later.

"We'd like for government to come and talk to us, and what all the
dangers are for us and especially for those kids that were playing
in those buildings," she said.

Christine Grant, who also lives nearby, says she wants her
children to be tested for asbestos effects, "to give them a check
up, to see how they feel, whether they're alright or not".

Testing revealed other asbestos buildings

The same demountable buildings sit unused on six other Tennant
Creek sites, and the asbestos in them was revealed in November
when residents commissioned their own laboratory tests.

The NT Government's Worksafe authority only confirmed the asbestos
was present, after more tests were carried out by the Asbestos
Disease Support Society.

"I personally was disappointed in Worksafe and I thought their
response was tardy," said Tennant Creek businessman Richard Dodd.

Julalikari has released a statement saying when the units were
imported, "the importer assured the corporation that they didn't
contain asbestos".
The corporation says now that its own tests have confirmed
asbestos, and that it is working with NT Worksafe to put in a
series of risk control measures to protect the public and workers,
including fencing off all the units.

Worksafe NT has said it "is satisfied that any risk is being
adequately managed".

The buildings were imported from China for Julalikari by former
AFL star Neville Roberts' company Rehne.

In January 2016 he told the ABC: "They were recreational houses
for the Julalikari Corporation down there. They're staff houses
and houses for transitional children and transitional Indigenous
travelling around."

He has now declined to comment on the asbestos.

Authorities failed residents

Australian asbestos imports were banned in 2003; the Immigration
Department hasn't explained why it allowed the buildings into
Australia but says it is "further scrutinising the importer".

"It's definitely a massive failure on behalf of Border Force, and
obviously the government of the day and the ministers of the day
because it shouldn't be coming in," said Andrew Ramsay from the
Asbestos Disease Support Society.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been
investigating Julalikari's compliance with funding agreements,
including for the demountable buildings, for three years.

It has given Julalikari until March to respond to the results of
its investigation, which it has refused to publish.

For three years the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told
the ABC its investigation into Julalikari's compliance with
funding agreements, including for the demountable buildings, was
continuing.

Julalikari told the ABC that rather than there having been one
investigation into its compliance with funding agreements,
including for the demountables, "there have been several isolated
investigations, which have been resolved as they have arisen".

"People are disappointed the government don't seem to react to
what is a large community concern for years," Richard Dodd said.
The Federal Indigenous corporations watchdog ORIC moved on
Julalikari, putting it into administration for six months, saying
its ability to respond to governance and operational matters had
been compromised by community disputes.

Julalikari has hit back, saying it "provided ORIC with a
comprehensive response that addressed all of its concerns, and
made a compelling case against the need to appoint a special
administrator".

Julalikari labels ORIC's claims 'baseless'

Julalikari's response to ORIC was provided to the ABC on Sunday.

In it Julalikari has particularly rejected the "most serious
findings (of impropriety and lack of due care and diligence)" as
being "baseless".

The Corporation has outright rejected some findings, including
that a majority of its directors were employees.

"Presently five of Julalikari's directors are employees of the
corporation.. . . the Act . . . is breached if seven or more
directors are also employees."

Julalikari said other findings, including that it had "failed to
properly monitor and manage" the remote jobs Community Development
Program, had been resolved.

"PM&C did raise concerns to the corporation with respect to the
delivery of the CDP program in 2015 and early 2016  . . . all
concerns were met and finalised and the corporation's performance
is now consistently sound."

Julalikari said the finding that "insufficient staff were engaged
to deliver certain programs and this was contributing to poor
program outcomes in some" is "an issue which has been rectified".

It accepted some findings, including that not all of its directors
are from corporation-member communities, and that "all cheques,
withdrawal forms and other banking documents are not signed by at
least two directors".

"The Corporation has a comprehensive financial delegation policy
which delegates the powers of the board in respect of approving
purchases (up to $250,000) to members of senior management and the
financial department," it said.

"It is from a pragmatic perspective anomalous that directors must
approve each individual transaction on a case-by-case basis."

Julalikari also accused ORIC of listening too enthusiastically to
criticisms from Tennant Creek people, including service station
owner Richard Dodd, who is involved in a dispute with the
Corporation over their joint business partnership.

"I don't blame any one particular body of government, I think the
whole lot of them should have got off their backsides and done
something a hell of a lot earlier than this," Andrew Ramsay said.
Resident Christine Morton says the government action against
Julalikari is too late to make much difference to people who now
have a horrible wait to see whether they will suffer asbestos
effects.

"Ever since I heard about it, I can't stop thinking about it. All
the time, especially for the kids," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Forced Couple Out of Apartment
--------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Vincent, writing for New York Post, reported that an Upper
East Side couple has had to live apart for two years after
creeping toxic dust from a neighbor's gut renovation forced them
out of their $2 million apartment, a lawsuit claims.

Edward and Marisa Greason each moved in with an elderly parent in
December 2014 after they found their Sutton Place apartment
covered in asbestos and lead-paint dust.

Alarmed by the carcinogenic powder, they grabbed what they could
and fled. They've been couch-surfing ever since.

"All our Christmas ornaments from 2014 are still in the living
room," Edward Greason, 57, told The Post. "It's been a strain. We
are living in overnight bags in two separate places."

Greason, an attorney, has ordered six scientific tests of the dust
particles, which continue to invade the apartment from air vents.
and through cracks caused by their upstairs neighbor's renovation,
he claims.

The tests show the presence of asbestos, and levels of lead 80
times the federal allowable limit, said Greason.


Contaminated dust around the kitchen door frameAngel Chevrestt
Their two-bedroom apartment has been "rendered uninhabitable" and
caused the couple "severe emotional distress," according to legal
papers filed by the Greasons against upstairs neighbor Mary
Cunningham, the co-op board, architect Jim Thomas, and the
construction company Global Group Industries Corp. involved in the
six-month renovation.

Workmen gutted Cunningham's apartment, tearing down walls and
ripping up floors that exposed asbestos-wrapped pipes and lead
paint in the old parquet floors, according to court papers. They
failed to cover work areas with " plastic sheeting," court papers
say.

And while the co-op board did spring for an initial clean-up and
attempted to seal the exposed cracks and vents, the dust continued
to rain down on the Greasons' kitchen and bathrooms, the lawsuit
says.

At one point, a member of the board told Greason that he was
overreacting, and should just wipe off the dust with a wet towel.

To add to their woes, the board took them to court to demand the
two years' of maintenance payments, which total more than $40,000
that the Greasons had put into an escrow account to pressure the
board to pay for cleaning and repairs.

But their mortgage lender paid out the maintenance, leaving the
Greasons little financial leverage against the co-op board.

The Greasons are asking a judge to force the defendants to pay for
a thorough environmental clean up of their home, and seek
unspecified damages for forcing them out of their home.

A spokesperson for the building told The Post, "We dispute
strenuously any environmental problems in our building. We point
out that plaintiffs started this lawsuit months ago and have not
pushed it forward, which to us is some indication of its lack of
strength."

Calls to Cunningham and the construction company were not
returned. Thomas, the architect, had no comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remediation Keeps Tenants Away
--------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Dedyna, writing for Times Colonist, reported that scores
of tenants displaced from an apartment building in James Bay will
likely be out of their units for a month, according to the company
doing asbestos-related remediation at the site.

Pinchin West is continuing work to meet Island Health safety
requirements, and tenants have been told the company expects re-
occupancy approval, tenant Paul Mitchell told the Times Colonist.

Tenants from about 60 units in Charter House at 435 Michigan St.
were moved to the Doubletree Hotel at the end of January after
elevated levels of asbestos were detected in settled dust samples.

Residents were initially told they would likely be out of their
units for two weeks. They will not be allowed back until Island
Health signs off on asbestos test results.

Hotel accommodations paid for by Starlight Property Holdings Inc.,
which owns the 1960s building and several others in Victoria, will
continue, with rents in abeyance until tenants return.

Mitchell said he finds living in a single hotel room without a
kitchen tiresome, although he's been provided with $200 for food
per week.

It's the second delay in the return of the residents.

"What I believe this indicates is that Island Health is holding
them to a much higher standard of testing than, for example, the
very quick testing that was done when my suite was contaminated in
September," Mitchell said.

A renovation crew voluntarily stopped work in December. The
building was also the subject of two WorkSafe B.C. stop-work
orders last year.

The orders involved compliance and health and safety issues
regarding asbestos surveys, containment and ventilation.

"The violations were small disturbances of asbestos and each
employer complied with the orders and the stop-works were lifted,"
said Trish Chernecki of WorkSafe B.C.

The agency considers any level of disturbed airborne asbestos
hazardous to workers.

NDP MLA Carole James said she cannot find any requirement that
tenants be informed of asbestos in their living quarters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dump Spilling Toxic Asbestos on to Bray Beach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim O'Brien, writing for The Irish Times, reported that an exposed
dump is spilling toxic asbestos on to a beach in Bray, Co Wicklow
-- and may contain more then twice the volume of waste as thought.

For decades the former Bray Urban Council dumped municipal waste
on the site north of the harbour, most of which is actually in Co
Dublin, making it now the responsibility of D£n Laoghaire-Rathdown
County Council.

In September 2005, after the environmental group Coastwatch
reported the dump had begun falling into the sea, an assessment
carried out by Wicklow County Council estimated the waste could
amount to as much as 48,000 cubic metres in volume.

The assessment concluded that the main environmental impact of the
former landfill was limited to the visual intrusion of the exposed
waste within the cliff face on the coastline, and at the top of
the cliff.

However, a report by environmental consultants Fehily Timoney for
D£n Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and delivered last December
found that the dump contains more then 104,000 cubic metres of
waste, including broken asbestos tiles, and features excessive
levels of ammoniacal nitrogen, potassium and manganese in the
groundwater.

The report concluded that the depth of waste in the landfill was
8.7m at the northern end of the site and noted that erosion of the
clay walls has exposed a 200m stretch of the former landfill. It
said contents are spilling onto the beach and being washed away by
the sea.

Cameras to monitor what waste is being placed in green bins
Green bin waste returned from Rotterdam due to contamination
Poolbeg incinerator to fire up after 20 years of opposition

The report said asbestos-containing materials have also been
identified at the coastal breach area in the southern portion of
the site in recent years.

The issue was raised in the D†il on January 25th by Wicklow TD
John Brady of Sinn FÇin. In response, Minister for Climate Change
and Environment Denis Naughten, said a management plan to contain
the waste was being drawn up.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Asbestos-related Disease
-------------------------------------------------------
The Suffolk Free Press reported that a Hadleigh man, who died from
an asbestos-related disease, was first exposed to the material
after being called up for National Service, an inquest heard.

John Gant, 82, died at his home in Woodthorpe Close on September
26. On February 13, an inquest in Ipswich heard that, after
working in the building trade, Mr Gant had, as a young man, been
called up for National Service. It was while working as a motor
vehicle mechanic that he was first exposed to asbestos dust from
components containing the material. Assistant Suffolk coroner
Kevin McCarthy said that, after ending his military service, Mr
Gant had continued to work as a mechanic. Doctors confirmed last
year that Mr Gant was suffering from the fatal condition
mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos exposure. Mr McCarthy
recorded a conclusion that Mr Gant died as a result of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Rejects Speculative Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in an article for JD Supra
Business Advisor, wrote that in a new wave of asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, plaintiffs allege that they were
exposed to talc-containing products that were possibly
contaminated with asbestos. A line of recent California court
decisions may, however, signal a sea change in the type of proof
that is required for plaintiffs in such cases to avoid summary
judgment.

Applying the settled principle in California that the "mere
possibility" of exposure to asbestos does not raise a triable
issue of fact, three separate trial court judges granted summary
judgment to talc defendants. See DePree v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No.
RG12659674, 2013 WL 8103815, at *1-3 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda
Cnty. Oct. 12, 2013); Unterleitner v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No.
RG15778755 at 4 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty. February 3, 2016);
Fields v. Ford Motor Co., No. RG15754936 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda
Cnty., Aug. 2, 2015). The first of these trial court decisions,
Depree v. BASF Catalysts, was recently affirmed on appeal.

In Traditional Asbestos Litigation, Defendants Typically Prevailed
on Summary Judgment Only Where the Plaintiff Failed to Provide
Product Identification. In the first wave of asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, the plaintiffs' bar targeted companies
as defendants that mined and distributed raw asbestos fibers and
companies that designed, made and sold products that intentionally
incorporated asbestos to resist heat or bind other materials.
Epidemiology studies demonstrated that certain occupationally
exposed cohorts--such as insulators and pipefitters--were
suffering asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, at
alarmingly high rates. In this first wave of asbestos litigation,
the defendants did not dispute that products they intentionally
designed to contain asbestos were "defective." The plaintiffs
were, therefore, able to get to a jury simply by identifying an
asbestos-containing product from which they claimed they were
exposed to visible dust.

Once Companies Began Making and Selling a Non-Asbestos-Containing
Variant of the Same Products That Previously Incorporated
Asbestos, California Courts Required Plaintiffs to Do More than
Merely Identify a Product by Name to Avoid Summary Judgment. As
the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos became
widely known, most companies that designed, made and sold
traditional asbestos-containing products, like insulation and
gaskets, began producing another variant of the same product that
no longer contained asbestos as a component. In cases where a
plaintiff sued a company that was responsible for making and
selling both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos containing
variants of the same products, courts concluded that the plaintiff
was required to do more than simply identify the product by name
and allege exposure to visible dust from that product to get to a
jury.

In a series of four California Court of Appeal decisions, the
Courts uniformly held that a plaintiff cannot avoid summary
judgment with evidence of exposure to a product where only some,
but not all, of the products in the accused product line asbestos.
See Collin v. Calportland Company (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 595
(affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant that made
asbestos-containing and non-asbestos-containing versions of a
product, because plaintiff could not "present evidence that would
allow a reasonable trier of fact to find [it] more likely than not
that" the plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos-containing
variant."); Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th
1078 (evidence that some, but not all, of a product contains
asbestos insufficient to defeat summary judgment because such
evidence establishes only a "possibility" that the plaintiff was
exposed to the asbestos-containing variant); McGonnell v. Kaiser
Gypsum Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105 ("[e]vidence that
creates a dwindling stream of probabilities that narrow into
conjecture" cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.); Casey
v. Perini Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1237 ("Mere
speculation or conjecture about exposure to asbestos . . . is
insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of
fact to preclude summary judgment."). Thus, where the evidence
adduced demonstrated a "mere possibility" of exposure to asbestos,
the claims failed as a matter of law.

Applying Settled California Law to the New Wave of Asbestos-
Related Personal Injury Litigation Involving Talc-Containing
Products, Claims Involving the Mere Possibility of Exposure to
Asbestos from Contaminated Talc Also Fail as a Matter of Law. In a
new wave of litigation filed against companies that mine, process
and distribute raw talc and companies that design, make and sell
consumer products that contain talc, none of the products at issue
was formulated to contain asbestos. Instead, plaintiffs allege
that they were exposed to products that contained talc and that
talc was occasionally and sporadically contaminated with asbestos.
Because such products were never designed to include asbestos as
an ingredient, and because not every, or even most, of the talc-
containing products were contaminated with asbestos, multiple
courts have required the plaintiff to do more than merely identify
a talc product by name and claim exposure to visible dust from
that product to get to a jury.

Absent direct evidence that one or more of the talc-containing
product containers used by the plaintiff were actually
contaminated with asbestos, or circumstantial evidence that all,
or at least most, of the accused talc-containing products were
contaminated with asbestos, a jury could not conclude that a talc
company was responsible for the plaintiff's asbestos-related
disease without impermissibly resorting to conjecture and surmise.
Under California law, courts have begun finding that such claims
fail as a matter of law.

For example, in DePree v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. A140681, 2016 WL
1039497 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016) (unreported), the plaintiffs
alleged that Plaintiff John Depree had developed mesothelioma from
exposure to an auto body filler product called Bondo. The product
was formulated to contain 20 to 40% talc but no asbestos as an
ingredient. Id. at *1-2. Relying on the opinions of a geology
expert, the plaintiffs claimed that the talc used in Bondo was
contaminated with asbestos. Id. at *3, *8-10. However, plaintiffs
could not present evidence that any can of Bondo actually used by
Mr. Depree contained asbestos, or that any talc shipped to
defendant ever contained asbestos. The court recognized: "The
question before us is not whether plaintiffs produced evidence
from which a jury could conclude Mr. DePree was exposed to Bondo
containing Emtal talc. Instead, the question is whether plaintiffs
produced evidence from which a jury could conclude--without
speculating--that Mr. DePree was exposed to Bondo containing
asbestos-contaminated Emtal talc." Id. at *11 (emphasis in
original). Relying on established California case law the court
held: "In the absence of evidence that all or even most of the
talc was contaminated with asbestos, plaintiffs could show only a
possibility of asbestos exposure," and "such a possibility is
insufficient to support a finding in plaintiffs' favor on the
issue of causation." Id. at *1. The court emphasized that "at
best" the evidence before the trial could have permitted an
inference that "some" of the talc at issue contained asbestos and
it was "possible" plaintiff was exposed to a can or cans of Bondo
containing asbestos-contaminated talc. Id. at *12 (emphasis in
original). Consistent with the quartet of California Court of
Appeal decisions involving products where only some variants
contained asbestos, the possibility of exposure to asbestos from a
talc-containing product is insufficient as a matter of law to
create a disputed issue of material fact.

The DePree decision also comports with California case law
concerning exposure to other materials that were allegedly
contaminated, rather than formulated, with a toxin. For example,
in Miranda v. Bomel Const. Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th
1326, the plaintiff alleged that he contracted "Valley Fever" from
contaminated soil stockpiled in the defendant's vacant lot next to
his office. Id. at 1328. The trial court granted summary judgment
because the plaintiff had no evidence that his disease was caused
by contaminated soil on the defendant's lot as opposed to another
source and because the plaintiff had presented no evidence that
the soil on the defendant's lot was actually contaminated. Id. at
1337, 1344. In affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of
Appeal observed that cases involving exposure by contamination
must be distinguished from cases involving exposure to products
intentionally designed to contain asbestos where defendants
"acknowledge the products under their control contained asbestos."
Id. at 1339. The Court of Appeal concluded that in a contamination
case, the plaintiff must prove the specific product or substance
to which she was exposed actually contained the disease-producing
toxin.

Conclusion. Under California law, where there is no direct
evidence of asbestos in the product the plaintiff actually used, a
plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment merely by showing that
some, but not all, of a defendant's product contained asbestos.
The recent application of this law to the novel issue of exposure
to talc-containing products is an important--and logical--
development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim's Family Settle Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that the family of a
Melbourne man who died of asbestos-related cancer has reached an
out-of-court settlement with the operators of the notorious
Wunderlich factory.

Wunderlich operators Seltsam Pty Ltd and the family of Samual
Azzopardi, who died of mesothelioma in February 2016, settled out
of court a day after his widow's suit against the company began in
the Victorian Supreme Court.

Maurice Blackburn asbestos lawyer Victoria Keays would not reveal
details about the settlement but said the Azzopardi family is glad
to finalise the matter.

"The Azzopardi family, including his wife Theresa and their four
children, is pleased to have this matter behind them," she wrote
in a statement to AAP.

Mr Azzopardi was aged 69 when he died of cancer allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos as a child.

Mr Azzopardi's father, Charlie, would come home covered in dust
and fibres from his job at Wunderlich. The work involved cutting
open bags of raw fibres, Michael Wilson QC told a Victorian
Supreme Court on Monday.

His father worked at the factory between the 1950s and 1970s.

The court also heard Mr Azzopardi was allegedly exposed to
asbestos a second time when he used concrete sheets purchased from
Wunderlich to renovate his parents' bungalow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Stadium Bleachers
----------------------------------------------------
Nikki Dotson Merritt, writing for The Herald-Dispatch, reported
that the Wayne County Board of Education revealed during a meeting
that paint used on the Ward-Craycraft stadium bleachers contains
asbestos.

Interim Superintendent Steven Paine said there is no cause for
concern from the community, although this is a bump in the road to
either refurbishing the bleachers or tearing them down.

"The bleachers are in fact safe, so no one needs to panic, they
are in a good state," he said. "However, there is a procedure to
either abate or encapsulate the asbestos."

Paine said he wants to let everyone involved know he and the board
are supportive of the restoration of the bleachers, but there has
to be a procedure followed.

"When you get into asbestos, things can get tricky," he said.
"Anytime we have members of the community who are passionate about
a cause, we want to capitalize on that and support them, but there
are procedures that will have to be followed."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral fiber that was used in
numerous building materials and vehicle products for its strength
and ability to resist heat and corrosion before its dangerous
health effects were discovered.

Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and can cause chronic lung
disease as well as lung and other cancers. Symptoms and/or cancer
may take many years to develop following exposure.

Exposure is hazardous due to unknowingly inhaling fibers trapping
them in the lungs. If swallowed, they can become embedded into the
digestive tract as well.

Paine also explained that not only is removing or sealing the
substance tedious, disposing of the material is complicated
because only certain landfills accept the waste.

There is also a large price tag on the process, ranging upwards of
$30,000 for complete removal.

Board members will receive a bid on the price, and will take steps
from there to ensure community safety.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock is the inability to open the newly
constructed Ceredo-Kenova Elementary School without properly
handling the asbestos situation.

"The fact is we are in a different realm on that project now,"
Paine said. "But, we will do whatever is needed to ensure the
safety of the community and to ensure that beautiful new school is
safely opened."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Company Sued Over Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Le, writing for the Australian Associated Press,
reported that the family of a Melbourne man who died from
mesothelioma is suing the operators of the former Wunderlich
cement factory where his father used to work.

Samual Azzopardi was 69 when he died in February 2016 after
developing the disease allegedly caused by his exposure to
asbestos as a child.

His father is said to have come home covered in dust and fibres
from his job at Wunderlich.

Mr Azzopardi was allegedly exposed to asbestos a second time when
he used concrete sheets purchased from Wunderlich to renovate his
parents' bungalow, Michael Wilson QC told a Victorian Supreme
Court on Monday.

"There is no issue in this case that what caused his death is
mesothelioma," Mr Wilson said in his opening statement before a
jury of six.

Mr Wilson said between the 1950s and 1970s, Mr Azzopardi's father,
Charlie, would come home covered in dust and fibres from his job
at Wunderlich, which involved cutting open bags of raw fibres.

"Charlie was working in a dusty environment," he said.

"He would bring home the fibres on his work clothes ... and he
would come into the family home and contaminate the furnishings in
the house.

"Sam was a young boy at this stage."

Mr Azzopardi senior also brought home off-cuts from Wunderlich
that his children touched.

"Sam's brothers and sisters played with these off-cuts," Mr Wilson
said.

"They picked them up, used them as chalk and would have contact
with these broken up concrete sheets."

But there's also a second period of exposure that could have
caused Mr Azzopardi's mesothelioma, which was not diagnosed until
a month before he died.

After getting married in 1969, Mr Azzopardi used concrete sheets
from Wunderlich to renovate his parents' bungalow so that he and
his wife, Theresa, could live there.

"In the process of extending the bungalow and renovating it, Sam
handled these sheets, cut them with a power saw," Mr Wilson said.
"It was a very dusty process."

His widow is suing Wunderlich operators Seltsam Pty Ltd for loss
and damages that their alleged negligence caused her husband's
estate.

Mrs Azzopardi is also claiming loss and damages as a dependent of
her husband.

The trial before Justice Rita Zammit will resume on Tuesday.




ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Dynamics Corporation faces or may face possible asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "...[V]arious claims and legal proceedings
incidental to the normal course of business are pending or
threatened against us. These other matters relate to such issues
as government investigations and claims, the protection of the
environment, asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters.
The nature of litigation is such that we cannot predict the
outcome of these other matters. However, based on information
currently available, we believe any potential liabilities in these
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

General Dynamics Corp. operates as an aerospace and defense
company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Faces Asbestosis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation faces occupational claims, including
asbestosis, by former or retired employees, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion) are often not caused by a specific accident or event but
rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.  Many
such claims are being asserted by former or retired employees,
some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for
decades.  The independent actuarial firm provides an estimate of
the occupational claims liability based upon our history of claim
filings, severity, payments, and other pertinent facts.  The
liability is dependent upon judgments the company makes as to the
specific case reserves as well as judgments of the actuarial firm
in the quarterly studies.  The actuarial firm's estimate of
ultimate loss includes a provision for those claims that have been
incurred but not reported.  This provision is derived by analyzing
industry data and projecting our experience. The Compay adjusts
the liability quarterly based upon our assessment and the results
of the study.  However, it is possible that the recorded liability
may not be adequate to cover the future payment of claims.
Adjustments to the recorded liability are reflected in operating
expenses in the periods in which such adjustments become known.

Norfolk Southern Corporation is a transporation company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Has 11,700 Cases at Dec. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company faces approximately 11,700
asbestos-related cases as of December 30, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the transition period from October 1, 2016, to
December 30, 2016.

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

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

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes branded and generic specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PCC Has $439MM Litigation Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation had $439 million total asbestos
litigation liability as of December 31, 2016, according to Corning
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").  PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the Modified Third Amended
Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became effective in
April 2016.  At December 31, 2015, the Company's liability under
the Plan was estimated to be $528 million.  At December 31, 2016,
this estimated liability was $290 million, due to the Company's
contribution, in the second quarter of 2016, of its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. in the total
amount of $238 million, as required by the Plan.  Corning
recognized a gain of $56 million in the second quarter of 2016 in
the selling, general and administrative expenses line of the
Company's Consolidated Statements of Income for the difference
between the fair value of the asbestos litigation liability and
carrying value of the investment.  This gain includes the release
of foreign translation losses in the amount of $25 million
reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income.  The
remaining $290 million liability is for the series of fixed
payments required by the Plan.  At December 31, 2016, the total
amount of the payments due in years 2018 through 2022 is $220
million and is classified as a non-current liability.  The
remaining $70 million payment due in the second quarter of 2017 is
classified as a current liability because it is expected to be
made within the next twelve months.

Corning Incorporated is a global technology-based company. The
Company produces optical fiber, cable, and photonic components for
the telecommunications industry, as well as manufactures glass
panels, funnels, liquid crystal display glass and projection video
lens assemblies for the information display industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Still Faces Non-PCC Asbestos Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc. is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries
from asbestos unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (the
"non-PCC asbestos claims"), according to Corning Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, " Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation
of the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC.  The
stay was lifted on August 25, 2016.  Corning previously
established a $150 million reserve for these non-PCC asbestos
claims.  The estimated reserve represents the undiscounted
projection of claims and related legal fees.  The amount may need
to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes available;
however, the Company cannot estimate any lesser or greater
liabilities at this time."

Corning Incorporated is a global technology-based company. The
Company produces optical fiber, cable, and photonic components for
the telecommunications industry, as well as manufactures glass
panels, funnels, liquid crystal display glass and projection video
lens assemblies for the information display industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 680 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company faces approximately 680 asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, as of December 31, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately 680 lawsuits. We
believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases. We believe that the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on our results of operations."

WestRock Company is in the packaging business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 64,400 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faces 64,400 claims relating to
alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products at
December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are currently one of numerous defendants
in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 64,400 claimants at December 31, 2016 relating to
their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in
products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials
present at our facilities. We manufactured, among other things,
rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through
1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials
prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors
or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working
at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial
portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a
Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in
our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on
defense and claim resolution was approximately $20 million during
2016. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were
exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from
various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma
and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages and other relief."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires
and related products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $316MM at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded liabilities totaling
$316 million, including related legal fees expected to be
incurred, for potential product liability and other tort claims,
including asbestos claims, at December 31, 2016, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "General and product liability and other
litigation liabilities are recorded based on management's
assessment that a loss arising from these matters is probable. If
the loss can be reasonably estimated, we record the amount of the
estimated loss. If the loss is estimated within a range and no
point within the range is more probable than another, we record
the minimum amount in the range. As additional information becomes
available, any potential liability related to these matters is
assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Loss ranges
are based upon the specific facts of each claim or class of claims
and are determined after review by counsel. Court rulings on our
cases or similar cases may impact our assessment of the
probability and our estimate of the loss, which may have an impact
on our reported results of operations, financial position and
liquidity. We record receivables for insurance recoveries related
to our litigation claims when it is probable that we will receive
reimbursement from the insurer.

"Specifically, we are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging
various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result
from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured
by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in Federal
and state courts.

"In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we
evaluated claims over the next ten year period. Due to the
difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data
and/or changed circumstances arising in the future may result in
an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase may be
significant. We had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted
and unasserted asbestos claims, inclusive of defense costs,
totaling $171 million at December 31, 2016.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery. This determination is based
on consultation with our outside legal counsel and taking into
consideration agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors.

"As of December 31, 2016, we recorded a receivable related to
asbestos claims of $123 million, and we expect that approximately
70% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through
insurance through the period covered by the estimated liability.
Of this amount, $12 million was included in Current Assets as part
of Accounts Receivable at December 31, 2016. The recorded
receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under
coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.
Although we believe these amounts are collectible under primary
and certain excess policies today, future disputes with insurers
could result in significant charges to operations.

"General and product liability (income) expense - discontinued
products includes charges for claims against us related primarily
to asbestos personal injury claims, net of probable insurance
recoveries. General and product liability (income) expense -
discontinued products for the year ended December 31, 2016
includes a benefit of $24 million for the recovery of past costs
from certain asbestos insurers and a benefit of $10 million
related to changes in assumptions for probable insurance
recoveries for asbestos claims in future periods. General and
product liability (income) expense - discontinued products for the
year ended December 31, 2015 included a benefit of $25 million for
the recovery of past costs from one of our asbestos insurers and a
benefit of $21 million related to changes in assumptions for
probable insurance recoveries for asbestos claims in future
periods. The 2015 benefits were partially offset by an $8 million
increase in the net asbestos liability based on updated
assumptions for defense and indemnity costs in future periods
based on historical cost data and trends."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires
and related products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Resolved 122,700 Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company disposed of approximately
122,700 claims alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries
purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 122,700 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $517 million and $497 million through December 31,
2016 and 2015, respectively.

A summary of recent approximate asbestos claims activity is
available at: https://is.gd/jWAWzs

"Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or
settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements
and the number of open claims during a particular period can
fluctuate significantly.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $171 million at
December 31, 2016 and 2015. In determining the estimate of our
asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten year
period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates,
analysis based on new data and/or changed circumstances arising in
the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation,
and that increase may be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance
carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our
insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an
amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $123
million at December 31, 2016 and $117 million at December 31,
2015. We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim related
losses would be recoverable through insurance during the period
covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
both December 31, 2016 and 2015. The recorded receivable consists
of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place
agreements with certain primary carriers and excess insurance
carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery
from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately $430
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under
certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements.

"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the
receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in
respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable
estimates of these amounts. The estimate of the assets and
liabilities related to pending and expected future asbestos claims
and insurance recoveries is subject to numerous uncertainties,
including, but not limited to, changes in:

   -- the litigation environment,

   -- Federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants,

   -- recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of
carriers,

   -- our approach to defending and resolving claims, and

   -- the level of payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts.

"As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims,
it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of
cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts
cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies
is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims
including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs.
product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products
or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of
these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, together with its
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells tires
and related products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $156MM Liability at Dec31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International Plc has $156 million estimated
asbestos related net liability as of December 31, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.

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

As of December 31, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position is $156 million. The
net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of $544 million, of which $35 million is
recorded in other current liabilities and $509 million is recorded
in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintains
separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance
recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial
position of $388 million, of which $42 million is recorded in
other current assets, and $346 million is recorded in other
noncurrent assets. Assets include $32 million of cash and $252
million of investments, which have all been designated as
restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at December 31, 2016 is $104 million. As of
September 30, 2016, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position is $148 million.

The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position is comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of $548 million, of which $35 million is
recorded in other current liabilities and $513 million is recorded
in other noncurrent liabilities. The Company also maintains
separate cash, investments and receivables related to insurance
recoveries within the consolidated statements of financial
position of $400 million, of which $41 million is recorded in
other current assets, and $359 million is recorded in other
noncurrent assets. Assets include $16 million of cash and $264
million of investments, which have all been designated as
restricted. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at September 30, 2016 is $120 million. The
Company believes that the asbestos related liabilities and
insurance related receivables recorded as of December 31, 2016 and
September 30, 2016 are appropriate.

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

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

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide.




                            *********

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  * * *