CAR_Public/170407.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, April 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 70



                            Headlines

ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Suit Moved to Oregon Federal Court
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Calif. Suit Pending
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay Securities Suit Pending
ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Product False Ad
AFFILIATED GROUP: Linares Sues over Debt Collection Practices

ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Bogart" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSO Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violation
ARS NATIONAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
ARUBA NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PAR Investment Suit
BROADCOM LTD: Appeal From Dismissal of Emulex Merger Suit Pending

BROADCOM LTD: Defends Class Suits Over Acquisition of Brocade
BROADCOM LTD: Delaware Suit Over PLX Acquisition Remains Pending
BROADCOM LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Merger Suit
CAREMERIDIAN LLC: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Says Kromphold Will Dismiss Merger-Related Suit

CG RYC: "Mata" Suit Moved to S.D. California Federal Court
CJS SOLUTIONS: Faces "Garrett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
COMFORT SYSTEMS: Faces "Maddison" Suit Over FLSA Violation
COOK GROUP: "Gettman" False Ad Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Temperature MDL Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Canela" Suit in California
DAYBREAK VENTURE: "Lockett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
DU-WELL FURNITURE: Faces "Germosen" FLSA Violation Suit in NY
DUNHAMS ATHLEISURE: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamza"

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Urena" Suit Claims
FCA US: Faces "Berken" Suit Over Defective Gearshift in Vehicles
FCA US: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit in North. Dist. of W. Va.
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Calif. Suits
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Customers' Appeal in Antitrust MDL Pending

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defends Securities Class Suits in New York
FINISAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
FIRST CENTURY: Faces "Oliver" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach
FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Continues to Defend Missouri Class Suit
FRANK RESTAURANT: "Pinguil" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay

FUEL ENERGY: Faces "Caaamano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT: Pay-Per-View Suit Sent to Arbitration
GC SERVICES: Faces "Sharon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces "Gonzalez" Sues Over TCPA Violation
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Monaghan" Sues Over ERISA Violations in N.Y.

HC2 HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Fastrich" Suit vs. CGI Pending
HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Refuses to Dismiss Claims in "Leonard" Suit
HC2 HOLDINGS: "Jacobs" Suit Parties Must File Accord by April 21
HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth et al. Balk at Bid to Compel Arbitration
HEWLETT PACKARD: Vieira Appeals Order Denying Class Certification

HEWLETT PACKARD: Trial in "Wall" Class Suit to Begin May 22
HILLMANN CONSULTING: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
HILTI INC: S & J Suit Moved from E.D. Cal. to N.D. Okla.
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Timm" Suit Pending
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery in "Marentes" Class Suit Underway

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Erdmann" Securities Class Action
JOSEPH TUCCI: Dismissal of IBEW's Suit Affirmed
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 11
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Fekete" Suit in E.D. New York
MARITIME MOBILE: "Vazquez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

MCCARTHY BURGESS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: "Ebner" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
MIAMI BEACH MEDICAL: Faces "Diaz" FLSA Suit in Fla.
MICROSOFT CORP: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Watson" Suit
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Winn Sues Over False Ad for Ginger Snaps

MONSANTO COMPANY: Judge Walter Certifies Class in "Martin" Suit
MOPHIE INC: "Stotz" Suit Remains Pending in California
MRS BPO: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Rossiter" Suit
MRS BPO: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
NBEO: Maryland Court Dismisses Data Breach Suits

NEAL TRUCKING: "Poisson" Class Action Settlement Has Initial Okay
NATIONAL TRACTOR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Class Cert. Sought in West Loop Suit
OFF LEASE ONLY: Florida Court Allows TCPA Suit to Proceed
ORACLE CORP: Colorado Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Troudt"

OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Dahhan" Securities Class Action in Mass.
PALMS SOUTH: Face "Health" Suit FMLA Violations
PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
PBF HOLDING: June 19 Scheduling Conference in "Goldstein" Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Corrections Department Faces "Randall" Suit

PETROQUEST ENERGY: Noteholders Voluntarily Dismiss Class Suit
PETROQUEST ENERGY: PQ LLC Defends Class Suit by Royalty Owners
PETROQUEST ENERGY: PQ LLC Defends Class Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
PHARM-SAVE INC: "Savidge" Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
PIRON LLC: Faces "Ali" Suit in Mich. Over FLSA Violation

PIZZA & PITA: Faces "Santis" Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: settlement class Sought in "Klippel" Suit
PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: 3 Shareholder Suits vs. Salix Pending
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Dismissal of "Lopez-Negron" Suit Vacated
RAZZLE DAZZLE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Certification of Barbers Class

PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: "Gallas" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
R & D TIERRA: "Espinoza" Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT
REVCLAIMS LLC: "Garrison" Dismissed for Lack of Standing
ROMANOFF FLOOR: "Bailey" Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Reports
ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York

RUBY CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Failed to Pay Wages, "Beckett" Suit Claims
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Dee" Sues Over Defective Phones
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Farmer" Sues Over Defective Note 7 Phone
SBE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Aliav" Suit over Discretionary Gratuity

SOCIAL AGENCY: Faces "Melingonis" Suit over Robocalls
SOLE TRANSPORT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
SOUTH FLORALS: Faces "Bedoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SOUTHEAST TITLE: Faces "Drinosky" Suit Over FLSA Violation
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Ubaldi v. Sallie Mae Remains Pending in Calif.

SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Ballantyne" TCPA Breach Suit in Mich.
SPIRIT DELIVERY: "Vargas" Suit Wins Class Certification
STATE FARM: MSO Recovery Sued Over Medicare Act Violations
STRATASYS LTD: Appeal From Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Pending
TONER DOCTOR: "Messerlian" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Cal.

TRANS UNION: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
TYSON FOODS: Faces Triple R Ranch Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
U.S. CONCRETE: Faces "Ruedelstein" Securities Class Action
U.S. WATER: "Moore" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
USCB CORP: "Gilmore" Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations in Ga.

UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gyokchyan" Suit Says
VECTREN UTILITY: Parties Agree to Settle Employees Class Suit
VILLA ARIANA: Orgera Seeks Unpaid Compensation Under Labor Law
WGL HOLDINGS: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with AltaGas
WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: "Meetz" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.

XPO PORT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Arrellano" Suit Says
ZVI MANOR: Faces "Fladger" FLSA Suit in NY


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Denies Widow's Dependent Benefits Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Dismissal of "Johnson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AO Dropped as Defendant in "Lemieux"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Affirms $208K Verdict vs. Okonite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane, CBS Win Summary Judgment in "Palmer"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Paquin" Can Proceed Against Crane, CBS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Dismissal of "Woo" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Former Mechanic's Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Joins Dozen States in Asbestos Trust Probes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrued $8MM Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $25MM Liability for Main Rapture
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro to Pay $20MM to Settle Canadian Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: May 15 Confirmation Hearing on GST Ch. 11 Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Coltec Seeks Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews Unit Has $200MM Unfavorable Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Equity Interest in PC Canceled at June 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Considers Non-PC-Linked Claims Moot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Faces 750 Post-PC Ch. 11 Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Has $180MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1,326MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Asbestos Paid Loss Was $708MM in 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Monitors Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Asbestos Disposal Increases in Cornwall

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman With Asbestosis Appeals for Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Ongoing in NZ Primary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Detected in Des Moines Apartments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumberland Council Offers Asbestos Help Program
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm to Remove Asbestos from High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Near Oroville Dam Spillway Rock
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Gravesend Waste Transfer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarence Valley Council Downplays Asbestos Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anaconda Wire May Face Fines for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prentice Cafe Closes for Asbestos Clearing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Timaru Northtown Mall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Asbestos Trusts Face Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Details Emerge on Motat's Asbestos Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Romford Mum Could Have Died from Asbestos


                            *********


ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Suit Moved to Oregon Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Brinkmann, both on behalf
of himself individually and, in addition, on behalf of the other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. ABM Onsite
Services - West, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 17CV06683,
Multnomah County Circuit Court, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon (Portland) on March 27, 2017.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00478-SB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

ABM offers industry-focused facilities solutions such as
electrical, energy, facilities engineering, HVAC, janitorial,
landscape, mission critical, and parking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, P.C.
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697 3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311 5629
          E-mail: jegan@eganlegalteam.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David G. Hosenpud, Esq.
          Laura L. Richardson, Esq.
          LANE POWELL, PC
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
          Portland, OR 97204-3158
          Telephone: (503) 778 2100
          Facsimile: (503) 778 2200
          E-mail: hosenpudd@lanepowell.com
                  richardsonll@lanepowell.com


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Calif. Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint filed in the securities lawsuit pending in a federal
court in California remains pending, the Company said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In July 2015, three securities class action
lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs. An amended consolidated complaint
was filed in February 2016. On November 3, 2016, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint."

"The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
December 2, 2016. The Company's motion to dismiss that amended
complaint is pending. The Company also has filed a motion
requesting that the Court order discovery in the related state
court action stayed, and a motion requesting that the Court
certify a class of investors who purchased the Company's
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015.  Both motions
are pending."

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
reasonably predict at this time the timing or outcomes of these
matters. The Company expects to incur costs associated with
defending the actions. While the Company has various insurance
policies related to the risks associated with its business,
including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the actions, that its insurance coverage, which
contains a self-insured retention, will be sufficient, or that its
insurance carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs.
Beginning in December 2016, the parties have been participating in
private mediation, which to date has not progressed to a point
where the Company is able to ascertain whether the mediation will
be successful. Currently, there are no active mediation
discussions between the parties. As a result of, among other
things, the uncertain status of the mediation, the early stage of
the proceedings, unresolved motions in the proceedings and the
uncertainty of the potential outcomes of these and related issues,
an estimate of a reasonably possible loss, or the range of losses,
if any, or their effect, if any, on the Company's consolidated
financial statements, is not reasonably possible to estimate at
this time.

Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., is a gene therapy company committed
to discovering and developing novel medicines that can offer
potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients living
with rare diseases or diseases of the eye, who currently have
limited or burdensome treatment options.  The Company is
leveraging its industry-leading adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based
platform to generate gene therapy product candidates designed to
provide durable efficacy by inducing sustained expression of a
therapeutic protein.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Stay Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc.'s renewed motion to stay the
securities action in California state court remains pending,
according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In December 2015, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against us, our board of directors, underwriters
of our January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two
of our institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo. The complaint
alleges that, in connection with our follow-on stock offering, the
defendants violated the Securities Act in essentially the same
manner alleged by the consolidated federal action: by allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly
omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical
trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys'
fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two
institutional stockholder defendants. In August 2016, the Court
denied the Company's motion to stay without prejudice, denied the
Company's demurrer, and dismissed with leave to amend certain
claims against the underwriter defendants."

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 2, 2016. The
Company's demurrer to that amended complaint and renewed motion to
stay the action is pending.

The Company believes that the claims in the asserted actions are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
reasonably predict at this time the timing or outcomes of these
matters. The Company expects to incur costs associated with
defending the actions. While the Company has various insurance
policies related to the risks associated with its business,
including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the actions, that its insurance coverage, which
contains a self-insured retention, will be sufficient, or that its
insurance carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs.
Beginning in December 2016, the parties have been participating in
private mediation, which to date has not progressed to a point
where the Company is able to ascertain whether the mediation will
be successful. Currently, there are no active mediation
discussions between the parties. As a result of, among other
things, the uncertain status of the mediation, the early stage of
the proceedings, unresolved motions in the proceedings and the
uncertainty of the potential outcomes of these and related issues,
an estimate of a reasonably possible loss, or the range of losses,
if any, or their effect, if any, on the Company's consolidated
financial statements, is not reasonably possible to estimate at
this time.

Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc., is a gene therapy company committed
to discovering and developing novel medicines that can offer
potentially life-changing therapeutic benefit to patients living
with rare diseases or diseases of the eye, who currently have
limited or burdensome treatment options.  The Company is
leveraging its industry-leading adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based
platform to generate gene therapy product candidates designed to
provide durable efficacy by inducing sustained expression of a
therapeutic protein.


ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Product False Ad
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tubbs, Ebony Baker, Stacy Porras, Josh Hall, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advocare
International, LP and Does 1-10, Case No. BC655398 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making false representations through mass media advertising that
"AdvoCare Spark" is a "unique multi-nutrient system that was
developed as a nutritional source of energy and enhanced mental
focus," it "enhances mental energy and focus," it contains "more
than 20 vitamins, minerals and nutrients that work synergistically
to provide a healthy, balanced and effective source of energy that
won't overburden or over stimulate your  body," it is a "source of
long-lasting energy and heightened mental focus and performance,"
and it contains "neuroactive amino acids that help increase your
mental focus and alertness by supporting your brain's ability to
receive and send messages.

The complaint says, the product in fact does none of this as it
does not increase mental focus or alertness; the minerals and
nutrients do not add anything to an otherwise healthy and balanced
meal plan; and do in fact burden and over stimulate one's body.

Advocare International, LP sells nutritional supplements, weight
management, energy, and sports nutrition dietary supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven W. Ritcheson, Esq.
      INSIGHT, PLC
      9800 D Topanga Canyon Blvd., #347
      Chatsworth, CA 91311
      Telephone: (818) 882-1030
      E-mail: swritcheson@insightplc.com

         - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue
      North Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


AFFILIATED GROUP: Linares Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA C. LINARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE AFFILIATED GROUP, INC., a
Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICES; and, JOHN
AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00450 (E.D. Wisc., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in
nature, as a result of Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff brought the action for the illegal practices of the
Defendant who, inter alia, used false, deceptive, and misleading
practices, and other illegal practices, in connection with its
attempts to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers.

The Debt arose out of a transaction in which the money, property,
insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction
are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The
Affiliated collects, and attempts to collect, defaulted debts
incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for personal, family,
or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail,
telephone, and Internet. On March 28, 2016, the creditor of the
Debt either directly or through intermediate transactions
assigned, placed, or transferred the debt to Affiliated for
collection.

The Affiliated Group is a debt collection company in Rochester,
MN.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Bogart" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Bogart and Lawrence Fascella, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allied Interstate
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01798-JFB-GRB (E.D. N.Y., March
30, 2017) seeks to recover damages for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

Defendant has violated the FDCPA by using a false, deceptive and
misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt, says
the complaint.

Defendant is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSO Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, the
Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
Corporation; ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Wisconsin Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02370 (N.D.
Ill., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks reimbursement for medical expenses
paid for by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members that
should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendants under
the Medicare Act.

The Defendants allegedly failed to fulfill their statutorily-
mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the
Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations
("MAOs") for medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and
the putative Class Members ("Class Members") on behalf of
Defendants' insureds. The Plaintiffs assert the rights of MAOs via
assignment of all rights, title, and interest allowing them to
bring these claims.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members provided Medicare
benefits to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled under the
Medicare Advantage program. Each Medicare beneficiary suffered
injuries related to an accident wherein Plaintiffs and the
putative class members paid for the medical items or treatment.
However, Defendants were ultimately responsible for paying those
expenses in accordance with the MSP Law. Defendants'
responsibility for such payments was demonstrated when Defendants
entered into settlements with the Medicare beneficiaries.

The Allstate Corporation is the second largest personal lines
insurer in the United States and the largest that is publicly
held. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          David M. Hundley, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355 0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
                  dhundley@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
          Telephone: (310) 207 3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820 7444
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Gashilova, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 1:17-
cv-01736 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

ARS National Services Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services to financial services organizations; banks; and credit
card companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      407 Rockaway Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11212
      Telephone: (646) 645-8482
      Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail dancohenlaw@gmail.com


ARUBA NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PAR Investment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAR INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P., Lead
Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.; DOMINIC
P. ORR; MICHAEL M. GALVIN; KEERTI MELKOTE, Defendants-Appellee,
No. 15-15323 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing
PAR Investment Partners LP's second amended putative class action
complaint with prejudice for failure to allege that Aruba
Networks, Inc. and three of its executives made material
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the competition for
market share in the wireless networking industry.

PAR Investment's underlying theory of securities fraud rests on
allegations that, throughout the class period, Aruba
misrepresented and failed to disclose certain information
regarding Cisco Systems, Inc.'s business operations in the market
for wireless networking products and services.  The Ninth Circuit
found that the district court correctly held that these
allegations do not constitute actionable securities fraud.

As lead plaintiff and putative class representative, PAR
Investment has filed two complaints asserting the same underlying
theory of securities fraud.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found
that PAR Investment has failed to provide any new allegations that
would support its securities fraud claim.  The Ninth Circuit thus
held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing the action with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 7, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/9NFkt2 from Leagle.com.


BROADCOM LTD: Appeal From Dismissal of Emulex Merger Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit arising from Broadcom
Limited's acquisition of Emulex Corporation remains pending,
according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 2017.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or
the Delaware Court of Chancery, against Emulex, its directors,
Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT
Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned
as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No.
10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v.
Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On
March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints alleged, among other
things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25,
2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the
Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints
sought, among other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to
rescind it following its completion, as well as damages, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating
the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-
VCL. On May 5, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of
Emulex. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the
consolidated action without prejudice.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The
complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless
and Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections
14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed
to provide material information and/or omitted material
information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex,
together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint
sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28,
2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order appointing
the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative
class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money
damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with
prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or
the Ninth Circuit Court, on January 15, 2016. The appeal is
captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his
opening brief, on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-
Appellees filed their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016
Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief.

On December 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court notified the parties
that this case is being considered for the April 2017 Pasadena
oral argument calendar. The exact date of any oral argument has
not been determined at this time.

The Company believes these claims are all entirely without merit
and intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Broadcom Limited is a leading designer, developer and global
supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on
complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide
semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products.  The
Company has four reportable segments: wired infrastructure,
wireless communications, enterprise storage and industrial &
other, which align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Defends Class Suits Over Acquisition of Brocade
-------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Limited is defending itself against lawsuits arising from
its Brocade Acquisition, according to the Company's March 9, 2017,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 29, 2017.

On November 2, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, or the Brocade Agreement, by and among Broadcom,
Broadcom Corporation (BRCM), Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, or Brocade, and Bobcat Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of BRCM,
or Merger Sub. On December 18, 2016, BRCM assigned all of its
rights and obligations under the Brocade Agreement and transferred
all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Merger Sub to
LSI Corporation, or LSI. The Brocade Agreement provides that, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Brocade with Brocade as the surviving
corporation, or the Brocade Acquisition. As a result of the
Brocade Acquisition, Brocade will become an indirect subsidiary of
Broadcom and the Partnership.

On December 13, 2016, December 15, 2016, December 21, 2016,
January 5, 2017 and January 18, 2017, six putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the U.S. Northern District
Court, captioned Steinberg v. Brocade Communications Systems,
Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7081-EMC, Gross v. Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7173-EJD, Jha v.
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7270-
HRL, Bragan v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No.
3:16-cv-7271-JSD, Chuakay v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:17-cv-0058-PJH, and Mathew v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-7271-HSG, respectively. The
Steinberg, Bragan and Mathew complaints name as defendants
Brocade, the members of Brocade's board of directors, Broadcom
Limited, BRCM, and Merger Sub. The Gross, Jha and Chuakay
complaints name as defendants Brocade and the members of Brocade's
board of directors. All of the complaints assert claims under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder. The complaints allege, among other things,
that the board of directors of Brocade failed to provide material
information and/or omitted material information from the
Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on December 6, 2016
by Brocade. The complaints seek to enjoin the closing of the
transaction between Brocade and Broadcom, as well as certain other
equitable and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2017, January 27, 2017 and February 15, 2017, the
U.S. Northern District Court granted motions to relate the cases,
all of which are now related to the Steinberg action and before
the Honorable Judge Edward Chen. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff
Jha filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was
subsequently withdrawn on January 18, 2017.

The Company believes these claims are all entirely without merit
and intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Broadcom Limited is a leading designer, developer and global
supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on
complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide
semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products.  The
Company has four reportable segments: wired infrastructure,
wireless communications, enterprise storage and industrial &
other, which align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Delaware Suit Over PLX Acquisition Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware class litigation arising from Broadcom Limited's
acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc., remains pending, according to
the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
29, 2017.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, or
Superior Court, challenging the Company's acquisition of PLX. On
July 22, 2014, the Superior Court consolidated these California
actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder
Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa
Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That same day, the Superior
Court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of
related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the Delaware
Court of Chancery consolidated these Delaware actions under the
caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the
consolidated action. On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs
in Delaware informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they
would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to seek
damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-closing
litigation. The Company's acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Pluto
Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted
the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's
Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as filed
with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder
vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages
and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the Delaware
Court of Chancery granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless,
the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied
motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac
Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities.

On August 17, 2016, the five remaining PLX director-defendants and
Deutsche Bank Securities entered into a stipulation of partial
settlement to resolve claims against all of the former PLX
directors and Deutsche Bank Securities asserted in the Delaware
class action. The partial settlement also provides for a release
of all potential claims against AT Wireless, Pluto Merger Sub,
Avago and PLX. Defendant Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. is not
a party to the settlement. This partial settlement was approved by
the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 20, 2016.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going. On November 9, 2016,
the sole remaining defendant, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.,
filed cross-claims against the named individual director
defendants and Deutsche Bank for contribution. Under various
contracts and statutes, PLX may owe indemnification to each of
these parties. The cross-claims are now barred according to the
terms of the approved partial settlement, although Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P. might be entitled to an offset (based on
contributory fault) of any damages it might owe to the class.

Broadcom Limited is a leading designer, developer and global
supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on
complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide
semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products.  The
Company has four reportable segments: wired infrastructure,
wireless communications, enterprise storage and industrial &
other, which align with the Company's principal target markets.


BROADCOM LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval of the settlement resolving the
consolidated lawsuit arising from the Broadcom Merger, according
to Broadcom Limited's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 29, 2017.

Since the announcement of the Broadcom Merger, 11 putative class
action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of
alleged Broadcom Corporation (BRCM) shareholders. Two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, or the U.S. Central
District Court, captioned: Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15,
2015, or the Federal Actions. On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs in
the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter filed an amended
complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal securities laws.
One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June
2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp.,
et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015;
N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
State Actions). The Federal Actions and State Actions name as
defendants, among other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of
directors and Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches.
Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating
the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder Cases, JCCP
4834. On September 18, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court
consolidated the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On
September 25, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of
the Federal Actions.

On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed
additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015,
BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Merger. On
November 16, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Federal Actions.

On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the
Federal Consolidated Complaint, which names as defendants, among
other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those
alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

On February 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of
BRCM.

On September 23, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, or the Stipulation, which
has been filed with the U.S. Central District Court. Pursuant to
the Stipulation, BRCM agreed to confirm certain facts concerning
the Broadcom Merger. Additionally, defendants agreed to pay or
cause to be paid attorneys' fees and expenses as may be awarded by
the U.S. Central District Court to plaintiffs' counsel for their
efforts in prosecuting the litigation, as well as the costs of
administering the settlement. The Stipulation provides that the
settlement is subject to certain conditions, including final
approval of the settlement and final certification of a settlement
class by the U.S. Central District Court. The Stipulation includes
a release of all claims against defendants relating to or arising
from the litigation. On December 2, 2016, the U.S. Central
District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On February 27, 2017, the U.S. Central District Court granted
final approval of the settlement. The settlement did not have an
impact on the Company's financial statements.

The Company believes that the claims in the litigation, including
the Federal Consolidated Complaint, are without merit and that no
misconduct or damages occurred. Defendants entered into the
settlement to eliminate the burden, distraction, and expense of
further litigation.

Broadcom Limited is a leading designer, developer and global
supplier of a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on
complex digital and mixed signal complementary metal oxide
semiconductor based devices and analog III-V based products.  The
Company has four reportable segments: wired infrastructure,
wireless communications, enterprise storage and industrial &
other, which align with the Company's principal target markets.


CAREMERIDIAN LLC: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Jessenla Gomez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Caremeridian, LLC and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC655730 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 28, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and penalties under
California Labor Code.

Caremeridian, LLC operates specialty nursing and rehabilitation
facilities throughout Los Angeles County and numerous other
counties in California, serving patients suffering from traumatic
injuries and medically complex illnesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Says Kromphold Will Dismiss Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc., disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2017, that the
Plaintiff will dismiss, with prejudice, his merger-related
lawsuit.

Castlight Health, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with Neptune
Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Castlight ("Merger Sub"), Jiff, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and Fortis Advisors LLC, as the Stockholders'
Agent, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Jiff
with Jiff surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Castlight (the "Merger").

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, on March 1, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
California (Kromphold v. Castlight Health, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:17-cv-1081) asserting a claim for violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against Castlight and its directors. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Castlight and its board of directors
disseminated a proxy statement that misrepresented or omitted
material information concerning the proposed Merger.
Castlight believes that the lawsuit is without merit and believes
that no further disclosure is required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the litigation delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the
litigation related to the Merger, the defendants have agreed to
make the supplemental disclosures related to the Merger as set
forth herein.

As a result of the supplemental disclosures set forth, the named
plaintiff in the pending lawsuit has concluded that the claims in
the lawsuit have been mooted, has determined not to seek to enjoin
the special meeting of Castlight stockholders to vote on the
Merger, and will dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.


CG RYC: "Mata" Suit Moved to S.D. California Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DEIMI CARMONA MATA, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CG RYC, LLC,
doing business as River Yacht Club, a foreign limited liability
company; CG RYC OWNER, LLC, a foreign limited liability company;
FOOD AND LEVERAGE, LLC, doing business as River Yacht Club, a
Florida limited liability company; and STEPHANE DUPOUX,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 17-04055 CA 01, was removed
on March 27, 2017, from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21132-DPG to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

River Yacht Club is yacht-friendly waterfront destination with
globally influenced seafood fare and a rooftop bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: lowell@kuvinlaw.com


CJS SOLUTIONS: Faces "Garrett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaimey Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI
Group, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00114 (E.D. Wash., March 29,
2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Jaimey Garrett worked for Defendant as a Consultant
providing information technology support.

The CJS Solutions Group, LLC d/b/a The HCI Group is a corporation
providing information technology and educational services for the
healthcare industry across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
   Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
   Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
   936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
   Seattle, WA 98103
   Tel: (206) 816-6603
   Fax: (206) 319-5450
   Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
          jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

        - and -

   Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
   Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
   Camille Fundora, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
          elechtzin@bm.net
          cfundora@bm.net

        - and -

   Harold Lichten, Esq.
   Olena Savytska, Esq.
   Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
   729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
   Boston, MA 02116
   Tel: (617) 994-5800
   Fax: (617) 994-5801
   Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
          osavytska@llrlaw.com


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Assad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00336 (D. Del., March 28, 2017) is a
class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. (CWEI) against CWEI and its Board of
Directors, to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
CWEI will be acquired by Noble Energy, Inc. and its affiliates.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of
CWEI will receive 2.7874 shares of Noble Energy and $34.75 in cash
for each share of CWEI stock they own. On March 23, 2017,
defendants filed a Definitive Proxy Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Proxy Statement.

CWEI is an oil and gas company engaged in the exploration for and
production of oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian D. Long, Esq.
   Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
   Gina M. Serra, Esq.
   Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
   2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
   Wilmington, DE 19803
   Tel: (302) 295-5310
   Fax: (302) 654-7530
   Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
          bdl@rl-legal.com
          gms@rl-legal.com

        - and -

   Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
   RM Law, P.C.
   1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
   Berwyn, PA 19312
   Tel: (484) 324-6800


COMFORT SYSTEMS: Faces "Maddison" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin T. Maddison, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse),
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00359-LEK-ATB (N.D. N.Y., March
30, 2017) seeks payments of overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint says Plaintiff was employed doing various types of
electrical work including, but not limited to installing,
maintaining, inspecting, testing, repairing and/or replacing fire
alarm and security system equipment.

Comfort Systems USA, Inc., provides heating, ventilation and air
conditioning installation, maintenance, repair and replacement
services within the mechanical services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
   Beranbaum Menken LLP
   80 Pine Street, 32nd Floor
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 509-1616
   Fax: (212) 509-8088
   Email: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com


COOK GROUP: "Gettman" False Ad Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gettman, et al., individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cook Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06064-RLY-
TAB (C.D. Ca., March 8, 2017) was removed from the Central
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) on March 28, 2017.

Plaintiffs seeks to receive appropriate diagnostic services and
other relief as a direct and proximate result of the negligent and
wrongful misconduct of Defendants in connection with the
development, design, promotion, marketing and sale of certain
inferior vena cava filters.

Defendants have designed, marketed and sold medical devices known
as Gunther Tulip Mreye, Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter, Cook
Celect Vena Cava Filter and Cook Celect Platinum ("Cook IVC
Filters") that were negligently and defectively designed and for
which Defendants have failed to provide adequate information and
warnings regarding their safety, effectiveness and failure rates,
says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ben C. Martin
   LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN
   3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1230
   Dallas, TX 75219
   Tel: (214) 761-6614
   Fax: (214) 744-7590
   Email: bmartin@bencmartin.com

        - and -

   Roland Tellis, Esq.
   Evan Zucker, Esq.
   Baron & Budd, P.C.
   15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
   Encino, CA 91436
   Tel: (818) 839-2333
   Fax: (818) 986-9698
   Email: Rtellis@baronbudd.com
          ezucker@baronbudd.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Temperature MDL Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation's appeal in the multidistrict
litigation over motor fuel temperature sales practices remains
pending, according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 12, 2017.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.
A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement, and the appeal is pending.
Plaintiffs moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees,
as well as an award of costs and payments to class
representatives. A report and recommendation was issued in favor
of a fee award of $4 million. On August 24, 2016, the district
court affirmed the report and recommendation. On March 20, 2014,
the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation"
provision under the settlement, under which it seeks to adopt
provisions in later settlements with certain other defendants. The
motion was denied on January 23, 2015.

Final judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the
Company's appeal is pending.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates membership warehouses based
on the concept that offering its members low prices on a limited
selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a
wide range of merchandise categories will produce high sales
volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  When combined with the
operating efficiencies achieved by volume purchasing, efficient
distribution and reduced handling of merchandise in no-frills,
self-service warehouse facilities, these volumes and turnover
enable the Company to operate profitably at significantly lower
gross margins (net sales less merchandise costs) than most other
retailers.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Canela" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Canela v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., et al., according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended February 12, 2017.

A class action alleging violation of California Wage Order 7-2001
by failing to provide seating to member service assistants who act
as greeters and exit attendants in the Company's California
warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No.
5:13-cv-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013). The complaint seeks
relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties
and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates membership warehouses based
on the concept that offering its members low prices on a limited
selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a
wide range of merchandise categories will produce high sales
volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  When combined with the
operating efficiencies achieved by volume purchasing, efficient
distribution and reduced handling of merchandise in no-frills,
self-service warehouse facilities, these volumes and turnover
enable the Company to operate profitably at significantly lower
gross margins (net sales less merchandise costs) than most other
retailers.


DAYBREAK VENTURE: "Lockett" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE LOCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAYBREAK VENTURE, L.L.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00211 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid back wages due and liquidated damages.

The Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in that
it failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours she worked by not
compensating her at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate
of pay for all the hours worked over 40 hours in one workweek.

The Plaintiff is an individual who was employed by Defendant
within the meaning of the FLSA within the three-year period
preceding the filing of this Complaint.  The Plaintiff and "Class
Members" are Defendant's current and former hourly-paid employees
who were not paid for all hours worked and who were not paid
overtime pay for overtime work as required by the FLSA.

Daybreak Venture provides long-term quality health care services,
nursing homes facilities, active senior living communities in
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          J. Forester, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: gasper@l-b-law.com
                  jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com
                  www.overtimelawyer.com


DU-WELL FURNITURE: Faces "Germosen" FLSA Violation Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Germosen, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Du-Well Furniture
Services, Inc. d/b/a Du-Well Furniture Finishers, Du-Well Wood
Restoration Corp., d/b/a Du-Well Wood Restoration, Nix
Restoration, Inc., d/b/a Nix Restoration, Regal Finishing Corp.,
d/b/a Regal Finishing, Richard Nix and James Nix, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02285 (S.D. N.Y., March 29, 2017) seeks to recover
from Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, damages
for Defendants' retaliation against Plaintiff, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Domingo Germosen was employed as a finishing worker by
Defendants.

Defendants are engaged in the Furniture Refinishing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUNHAMS ATHLEISURE: Court Narrows Claims in "Hamza"
---------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Denise Page Hood of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count I and granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count II in the case
captioned, ABDUL HAMZA, Plaintiff, v. DUNHAMS ATHLEISURE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos. 16-11641 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff is an adult consumer who resides in Saint Clair Shores,
Michigan, and Defendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Troy, Michigan. On February 29, 2016, Defendant began placing
automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a two-count Class Action Complaint
against Defendant, and Defendant filed an initial motion to
dismiss on July 20, 2016. Count I alleges injury-in-fact due to
invasion of privacy and Count II alleges a claim for willfulness
under the TCPA. Plaintiff alleges that he had not: (1) opted in or
text-messaged Defendant to effect an opt-in; (2) provided his
cellular telephone number to Defendant; or (3) provided Defendant
prior express written consent to send automated text messages to
his cellular telephone.

After Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on
August 10, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 24, 2016. Defendant
asserts that (1) there can be no injury-in-fact due to invasion of
privacy because Aisha Hamza consented to Defendant sending texts
to the Number; (2) the other injuries Plaintiff alleges (loss of
battery power, incurring charges for his phone) are injuries
Plaintiff would have incurred whether the texts were sent from an
ATDS or resulted from manual texting.

In her Order dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/JvmOd8 from Leagle.com, Judge Hood denied the Motion
to Dismiss as to Count I because an invasion of privacy within the
context of the TCPA constitutes a concrete harm that meets the
injury-in-fact requirements.  Judge Hood granted the Motion to
Dismiss as to Count II because the plaintiff has not alleged that
he notified Defendant that he did not consent to the text messages
sent by Defendant.

Abdul Hamza is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      06987, 43 Danbury Rd,
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Tel: (855)301-2100

DunhamsAthleisure Corporation is represented by Robert M. Horwitz,
Esq. -- rhorwitz@dykema.com -- and -- Thomas M. Schehr, Esq. --
tschehr@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Urena" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eliseth Urena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01721
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is in the adjustment and collection
services business. [BN]

Eliseth Urena is a pro se plaintiff.


FCA US: Faces "Berken" Suit Over Defective Gearshift in Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinn Berken, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-10983-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich., March 28, 2017) seeks to
recover damages for Defendant's fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and concealment of the known gearshift defect in the vehicles.

FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   E. Powell Miller, Esq.
   Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
   Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
   The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
   950 West University Drive, Suite 300
   Rochester, MI 48307
   Tel: (248) 841-2200
   Fax: (248) 652-2852
   Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
          ssa@millerlawpc.com
          dal@millerlawpc.com

        - and -

   Joseph H. Meltze, Esq.
   Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
   Melissa Troutner, Esq.
   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
          pmuhic@ktmc.com
          mtroutner@ktmc.com

        - and -

   Steve W. Berman, Esq.
   Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
   Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
   Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP
   1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
   Seattle, WA 98101
   Tel: 206-623-7292
   Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
          toml@hbsslaw.com
          christopherp@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

   Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
   Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
   David A. Goodwin, Esq.
   Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
   Gustafson Gulek PLLC
   Canadian Pacific Plaza
   120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: 612-333-8844
   Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
          jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
          dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
          rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com


FCA US: Faces "Johnson" Class Suit in North. Dist. of W. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against FCA US LLC, Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch
LLC.

The case is captioned Derek R. Johnson and Stonewall J. Webster,
III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH,
and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00047-IMK (N.D. W. Va.,
March 28, 2017).

The Defendants operates an automobile company in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ann Ritter, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE, LLC
      28 Bridgeside Blvd.
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: aritter@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Archie I. Grubb, Esq.
      W. Daniel Miles III, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
              dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

         - and -

      Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
      Eric A. Snyder, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
      Katherine E. Charonko, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      209 Capitol St.
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 340-7864
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
              esnyder@baileyglasser.com
              jboggs@baileyglasser.com
              kcharonko@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Elizabeth Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
      Embaracadero Center West
      29th Floor, 275 Battery St.
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      NESS, MOTLEY, LOADHOLT, RICHARDSON & POOLE
      PO Box 1137
      Charleston, SC 29402
      Telephone: (803) 577-6747
      E-mail: jrice@motelyrice.com

         - and -

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

          - and -

       Paul J. Geller, Esq.
       ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
       120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
       Boca Raton, FL 33432
       Telephone: (561) 750-3000
       Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
       E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Calif. Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., awaits the Plaintiffs' next move in the
putative class action lawsuits commenced in California, according
to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
31, 2017.

Putative class action cases have been filed in California relating
to residual propane remaining in the tank after use.  Ferrellgas
has prevailed at the trial court on a motion to dismiss those
claims.

The Company says it is uncertain whether plaintiffs will appeal;
Ferrellgas intends to vigorously defend any such appeal.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., is a distributor of propane and related
equipment and supplies to customers in the United States as
measured by the volume of its retail sales in fiscal 2016 and a
leading national provider of propane by portable tank exchange.
The Company serves residential, industrial/commercial, portable
tank exchange, agricultural, wholesale and other customers in all
50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The
Company's consolidated subsidiaries include Ferrellgas Partners
Finance Corp., Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Customers' Appeal in Antitrust MDL Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by direct customer plaintiffs in an antitrust
multidistrict litigation remains pending, Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 9, 2017, for the quarter period ended January
31, 2017.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated
in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and
combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill
reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one
case by a multidistrict litigation panel.  The Court has dismissed
all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than
state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which is
pending.

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

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., is a distributor of propane and related
equipment and supplies to customers in the United States as
measured by the volume of its retail sales in fiscal 2016 and a
leading national provider of propane by portable tank exchange.
The Company serves residential, industrial/commercial, portable
tank exchange, agricultural, wholesale and other customers in all
50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The
Company's consolidated subsidiaries include Ferrellgas Partners
Finance Corp., Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defends Securities Class Suits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., continues to defend itself against
purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of securities
laws, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2017, for the quarter period
ended January 31, 2017.

Ferrellgas has been named, along with several current and former
officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging violations of
certain securities laws based on alleged materially false and
misleading statements in certain of our public disclosures. The
lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in the
Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages. A derivative lawsuit with similar allegations has been
filed in state court in Missouri naming Ferrellgas and several
current and former officers and directors as defendants.

Ferrellgas believes that it has defenses and will vigorously
defend these cases. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable
or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuits or the derivative action.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., is a distributor of propane and related
equipment and supplies to customers in the United States as
measured by the volume of its retail sales in fiscal 2016 and a
leading national provider of propane by portable tank exchange.
The Company serves residential, industrial/commercial, portable
tank exchange, agricultural, wholesale and other customers in all
50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  The
Company's consolidated subsidiaries include Ferrellgas Partners
Finance Corp., Ferrellgas, L.P. and Ferrellgas Finance Corp.


FINISAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation awaits decision on its motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
29, 2017.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated
complaint was filed. On September 30, 2013, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint and entered judgment, and plaintiff appealed.

On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment in part for further proceedings in the District
Court. On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint in the District Court. On August 19, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss. The motion has been briefed and heard by the
District Court, and is under submission.

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

Finisar Corporation is a provider of optical subsystems and
components that are used in data communication and
telecommunication applications.  The Company's optical subsystems
consist primarily of transmitters, receivers, transceivers,
transponders and active optical cables, which provide the
fundamental optical-electrical, or optoelectronic interface for
interconnecting the electronic equipment used in these networks,
including the switches, routers, and servers used in wireline
networks as well as the antennas and base stations used in
wireless networks.


FIRST CENTURY: Faces "Oliver" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Oliver, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. First Century Bank, N.A., Stored Value
Cards, Inc. d/b/a Numi Financial, Case No. 3:17-cv-00620-MMA-KSC
(S.D. Cal., March 28, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Civil Rights Act.

First Century Bank, N.A. operates a community bank that provides
banking services for individuals, and small and medium sized
businesses.

Stored Value Cards, Inc. provides prepaid stored value card
products to both the retail and enterprise channels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Tabb, Esq.
      ZAVERI TABB, APC
      402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 831-6987
      Facsimile: (619) 239-7800
      E-mail: jimmy@zaveritabb.com

FAMILY BENEFIT LIFE: Continues to Defend Missouri Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of First Trinity Financial Corporation continues to
defend itself against a pending class action lawsuit in Missouri,
according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company
(TLIC), Family Benefit Life Insurance Company (FBLIC) developed,
marketed, and sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing
Term to 95" policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of
Directors voted that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not
approving, and therefore was not providing, a dividend for the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22, 2013, three
individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a
Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting
claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a
dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Section 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies
are void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies.

In addition, as part of the MMPA claim, plaintiffs are now
alleging that FBLIC undertook a fraudulent scheme to sell the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a level premium for level
benefit even though FBLIC never intended to pay dividends for the
life of the policies and that part of this alleged fraudulent
scheme included having a dividend option which is not allowed
under Missouri law. FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended
Petition and will continue to defend against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification. On July
21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain the claims
for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, violation
of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the Decreasing Term to 95
policies. On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
asking for permission to appeal the Court's class certification.
The Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied.

FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and
individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the
potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final
certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive
action.

First Trinity Financial Corporation is the parent holding company
of Trinity Life Insurance Company, Family Benefit Life Insurance
Company and First Trinity Capital Corporation. The Company was
incorporated in Oklahoma on April 19, 2004, for the primary
purpose of organizing a life insurance subsidiary.  TLIC and FBLIC
are primarily engaged in the business of marketing, underwriting
and distributing a broad range of individual life insurance
products and annuity contracts to individuals.


FRANK RESTAURANT: "Pinguil" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Pinguil, Segundo Tacuri Quito, Jose Lema, Fausto Peralta,
Neptali Peralta, Segundo Campoverde, Edison Valleso, and Juan
Matute, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. We Are All Frank, Inc. d/b/a Frank Restaurant, Kitchen
Table, Inc. d/b/a Frank Restaurant and Frank Restaurant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02237 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Frank Restaurant located at 88
Second Avenue, New York, New York 10003. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


FUEL ENERGY: Faces "Caaamano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Caamano, others similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. Fuel Energy Source Hallandale LLC and Gilberto Garay,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-60619 (S.D. Fla., March
29, 2017) seeks to recover from Defendant overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Isabel Caamano is employed as a cashier and general
store employee at Defendant's Gas Station.  Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half her
regular rate, for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, says
the complaint.

Defendant Fuel Energy Source is a retail business operating as a
Westar Gas station and convenience store. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
   Zandro E. Palma, P.A.
   9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
   Miami, Fl 33156
   Tel: (305) 446-1500
   Fax: (305) 446-1502
   Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT: Pay-Per-View Suit Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted motion to compel
arbitration and stayed, pending resolution of the arbitration, the
case captioned, G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
JAIME F. CASTILLO, MARIA A. CASTILLO, and EL BAJIO ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendants. JAIME F. CASTILLO, MARIA A. CASTILLO, and EL
BAJIO ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT
EVENTS, LLC, Counter-Defendant. JAIME F. CASTILLO, MARIA A.
CASTILLO, and EL BAJIO ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTV
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DIRECTV, LLC, and THE DIRECTV GROUP, Third-
Party Defendants. JAIME F. CASTILLO, MARIA A. CASTILLO, and EL
BAJIO ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. LAW OFFICES OF
THOMAS P. RILEY, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02073 (N.D.
Ill.).

For nearly three years, the parties have been sparring over
alleged violations of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
Section 605, and the Cable and Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 553.  The
plaintiff, G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, filed a two-count
complaint alleging that Jaime Castillo, Maria Castillo, and El
Bajio Enterprises, Inc., doing business as La Pena Restaurante,
showed a pay-per-view boxing match at La Pena on April 20, 2013,
without proper authorization from G&G.  As the pleadings stand
now, the Castillos assert class action counterclaims against G&G
and a third-party class action against an attorney who has
represented G&G, Law Offices of Thomas P. Riley, alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). The Castillos also
received leave to bring a third-party class action complaint
alleging ICFA violations against DirecTV International, Inc.;
DirecTV, LLC; and the DirecTV Group, Inc.

The case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for
discovery supervision and settlement conference pursuant to Local
Rule 72.1 and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b). On November 2, 2016, the
magistrate judge eventually set March 1, 2016, as the deadline for
completing all discovery. The magistrate judge denied a motion to
extend discovery filed by the Castillos, and they have moved to
set the magistrate judge's order aside pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72.

The court granted the Castillos leave to file their most recent
round of live pleadings on April 27, 2016. They filed their live
pleadings on May 11, 2016. DirecTV moved to compel arbitration on
May 26, 2016.

G&G then moved to knock out the Castillos' counterclaims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Castillos
countered with a motion for summary judgment on G&G's
Communications Act claim. Meanwhile, Riley moved to dismiss the
third-party complaint against him under Rule 12(b)(6). In
September 2016, G&G filed a motion for sanctions against the
Castillos and their counsel, arguing that the Castillos' third
amended counterclaim made inappropriate allegations in light of
the discovery that had occurred. G&G followed up with a motion for
summary judgment on the Castillos' liability to it under the
Communications Act.

Defendant Aaron's Inc. filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' New
Expert Report, arguing that the report is improper rebuttal
testimony, it is untimely by more than three years, and Defendants
will be prejudiced if it is allowed to stand. Additionally,
Defendant Aaron's Inc. requests the Court to award Aaron's Inc.
its costs and attorneys' fees in connection with the motion.

Invoking the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), DirecTV moves to
compel the Castillos to arbitrate their third-party claims
pursuant to their Customer Agreement and for a stay. The Castillos
respond that: (1) DirecTV has produced insufficient evidence that
it sent J. Castillo a copy of the Customer Agreement before his
claims arose; (2) this dispute falls into an exclusion in Section
9(d) of the Customer Agreement; and (3) the Customer Agreement is
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2017,
available at https://is.gd/eks8rz from Leagle.com, Judge
Gottschall granted motion to compel arbitration even if G&G,
Riley, and the nonparties who have been swept into this
litigation, holding that under the Arbitration Act, an arbitration
agreement must be enforced notwithstanding the presence of other
persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the
arbitration agreement.

Staying the action in its entirety is the appropriate course
because it can efficiently shed light on the factual disputes in
which G&G, the Castillos, and Riley on the issues remaining in
federal court.

G&G Closed-Circuit Events, LLC, et al. are represented by:

      Andre Ordeanu, Esq.
      ZANE D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 N. LaSalle St #1320
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel:(312)245-0031

El Bajio Enterprises, Inc., et al. are represented by Lisa L.
Clay, Esq. -- LISACLAY@PWALSH.COM -- and -- Patrick W. Walsh, Esq.
-- PATRICK.WALSH@PWALSH.COM -- PATRICK W. WALSH, P.C.

DirecTV International, Inc., et al. are represented by Archis A.
Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- and -- Matthew
David Provance, Esq. -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN
LLP


GC SERVICES: Faces "Sharon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is titled as Ela Sharon, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01700 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 27, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
all center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces "Gonzalez" Sues Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grand Celebration Cruises, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00644-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 30,
2017) seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants are responsible for operating the MV Grand Celebration
cruise ship, which sails daily between the Port of Palm Beach,
Florida and Grand Bahama Island. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua Swigart, Esq.
   Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
   Hyde and Swigart
   2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Fax: (619) 297-1022
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
          Kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

   Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ak@kazlg.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Monaghan" Sues Over ERISA Violations in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Monaghan, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated and on behalf of the JPMorgan Chase 401(K)
Savings Plan, Plaintiff v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02315 (S.D. N.Y., March 30, 2017)
seeks damages for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The complaint says Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by engaging in self-dealing and acting to benefit
themselves to the detriment of Plan participants by making half of
all Plan investment options JPMorgan-affiliated funds, favoring a
close business partner BlackRock and charging excessive fees for
investment options in the Plan to the detriment of Plaintiff, the
Plan and members of the Class.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. provides a range of banking and other
financial services to the corporate, institutional, and
governmental clients in the United States and internationally.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
   Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
   Stephanie Bartone, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   733 Summer Street, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (866) 367-6510
   Email: shopkins@zlk.com
          nkulesa@zl.com
          sbartone@zlk.com


HC2 HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Fastrich" Suit vs. CGI Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the complaint filed by
John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc., is pending
and not yet fully briefed, HC2 Holdings, Inc., said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November, 28 2016, Continental General Insurance Company (CGI),
a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial Resources,
Inc. (GAFRI), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA
Corporation were served with a class action complaint filed by
John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging
breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record
under various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on
policies that were replaced. The complaint also alleges breach of
contract claims relating to vesting of commissions.

CGI believes that the allegations and claims set forth in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.  To that end, CGI, GAFRI and CIGNA Corporation filed
a joint motion to dismiss the complaint on February 27, 2017.  The
motion is pending and is not yet fully briefed.

Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and
indemnification for any losses that may stem from the claims from
GAFRI and Continental General Corporation ("CGC").  GAFRI and CGC
rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification and, on
January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a complaint against
GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a
declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights under
the SPA.  GAFRI and CGC filed their answer on February 23, 2017.
The dispute is ongoing.

HC2 Holdings, Inc., is a diversified holding company.  The
Company's principal operating subsidiaries include: DBM Global
Inc., a family of companies providing fully integrated structural
and steel construction services; Global Marine Systems Limited, a
leading provider of engineering and underwater services on
submarine cables; Continental Insurance Group Ltd., a platform for
the Company's run-off long-term care and life and annuity
business, through its insurance company, Continental General
Insurance Company; PTGi-International Carrier Services Inc., a
provider of internet-based protocol and time-division multiplexing
access and transport of long-distance voice minutes; American
Natural Gas, a compressed natural gas fueling company; Pansend
Life Sciences, Ltd., the Company's subsidiary focused on
supporting healthcare and biotechnology product development; and
other interests that include controlling interests in DMi, Inc.,
which owns licenses to create and distribute NASCAR(R) video
games, and NerVve, Inc., which provides analytics on broadcast TV,
digital and social media online platforms.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Refuses to Dismiss Claims in "Leonard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court refuses to dismiss certain claims due to
failure to obtain appropriate consent of Plaintiff Dylan Leonard,
according to HC2 Holdings, Inc.'s March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 9, 2015, a putative class action wage and hour lawsuit was
filed against Schuff Steel Company ("SSC") and Schuff
International (now d/b/a DBMG) (collectively "Schuff") in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court BC587322, captioned Dylan Leonard,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
v. Schuff Steel Company and Schuff International, Inc. The
complaint makes generic allegations of numerous violations of the
California wage and hour laws and claims that Schuff failed to:
pay for overtime, pay for meal and rest breaks, to fulfill its
obligations under minimum wage laws, to timely pay business
expenses, wages and final wages, to keep requisite payroll
records, and to provide compliant wage statements.

On August 11, 2015, another putative class action wage and hour
lawsuit was filed against SSC in San Joaquin County Superior
Court, 39-2015-003282720CU-OE-STK, captioned Pablo Dominguez, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Schuff Steel
Company. The complaint alleges non-compliant wage statements and
demands penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. On
October 11, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Dominguez
claim pursuing only the statutory claim based on the non-compliant
wage statements.

On December 17, 2015, the matters were designated as the Schuff
Steel Wage and Hour Cases and assigned a coordination trial judge.
On August 4, 2016, the Court denied the Dominguez motion for
continuance and determined that the claim for civil penalties
ended when Mr. Dominguez passed away on August 10, 2015.

The Company settled the remaining Dominguez claims under a
confidential agreement which the Company believes will have no
material adverse effect on it, and the case was dismissed on
December 20, 2016.

On January 17, 2017, counsel for Leonard agreed to dismiss the
individual claims with prejudice and the class-action claims
without prejudice; however the dismissal was not approved by Court
due to failure to obtain the appropriate consent of the plaintiff.

The Company believes that the allegations and claims set forth in
the Complaint are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously, and that the matter will be disposed of.

HC2 Holdings, Inc., is a diversified holding company.  The
Company's principal operating subsidiaries include: DBM Global
Inc., a family of companies providing fully integrated structural
and steel construction services; Global Marine Systems Limited, a
leading provider of engineering and underwater services on
submarine cables; Continental Insurance Group Ltd., a platform for
the Company's run-off long-term care and life and annuity
business, through its insurance company, Continental General
Insurance Company; PTGi-International Carrier Services Inc., a
provider of internet-based protocol and time-division multiplexing
access and transport of long-distance voice minutes; American
Natural Gas, a compressed natural gas fueling company; Pansend
Life Sciences, Ltd., the Company's subsidiary focused on
supporting healthcare and biotechnology product development; and
other interests that include controlling interests in DMi, Inc.,
which owns licenses to create and distribute NASCAR(R) video
games, and NerVve, Inc., which provides analytics on broadcast TV,
digital and social media online platforms.


HC2 HOLDINGS: "Jacobs" Suit Parties Must File Accord by April 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the
lawsuit initiated by Mark Jacobs have until April 21, 2017, to
submit a stipulation of settlement or status report to the Court.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBMG was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt,
Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").  On November 17, 2014, a
second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc.
Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill,
Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings,
Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.  On February 19, 2015, the court
consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and
counsel.  The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed
by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in
connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the
DBMG's Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder
of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the
plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a
potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation
that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders
of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer.  The
Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory
damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The
defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.

On February 24, 2017, the parties agreed to a framework for the
potential settlement of the litigation. On February 28, 2017, the
Court entered an order vacating the current scheduling order and
deadlines and giving the parties until April 21, 2017 to submit a
stipulation of settlement or status report to the Court.

The Company says there can be no assurance that a settlement will
be finalized or that the Court would approve such a settlement
even if the parties were to enter into a settlement stipulation or
agreement. The Company believes that the settlement under
discussion would not have a material effect on the Company's
financial condition or operating results.

HC2 Holdings, Inc., is a diversified holding company.  The
Company's principal operating subsidiaries include: DBM Global
Inc., a family of companies providing fully integrated structural
and steel construction services; Global Marine Systems Limited, a
leading provider of engineering and underwater services on
submarine cables; Continental Insurance Group Ltd., a platform for
the Company's run-off long-term care and life and annuity
business, through its insurance company, Continental General
Insurance Company; PTGi-International Carrier Services Inc., a
provider of internet-based protocol and time-division multiplexing
access and transport of long-distance voice minutes; American
Natural Gas, a compressed natural gas fueling company; Pansend
Life Sciences, Ltd., the Company's subsidiary focused on
supporting healthcare and biotechnology product development; and
other interests that include controlling interests in DMi, Inc.,
which owns licenses to create and distribute NASCAR(R) video
games, and NerVve, Inc., which provides analytics on broadcast TV,
digital and social media online platforms.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Forsyth et al. Balk at Bid to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is defending itself against a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Forsyth, et al., in
California, according to the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2017.

On April 3, 2017, Karen Becks, Albert R. DeVere, Donna J. Forsyth,
Ed Kaplan, Shafiq Rahman, Sidney L. Staton, III, Arun Vatturi, Dan
Weiland filed an opposition/response to Motions to compel opt-in
plaintiffs to arbitration.

The purported class and collective action styled Forsyth, et al.
v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise
alleging defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business
and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing
them with younger workers.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a
nationwide collective action under the ADEA comprised of all
individuals aged 40 and older who had their employment terminated
by an HP entity pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on
or after December 9, 2014 for individuals terminated in deferral
states and on or after April 8, 2015 in non-deferral states.
Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is an industry leading
technology company that enables customers to go further, faster.
With the industry's most comprehensive portfolio, spanning the
cloud to the data center to workplace applications, its technology
and services help customers around the world make information
technology more efficient, more productive and more secure.  The
Company's customers range from small- and medium-sized businesses
to large global enterprises.

On November 1, 2015, the Company became an independent publicly-
traded company through a pro rata distribution by HP Inc. ("former
Parent" or "HPI"), formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP
Co."), of 100% of the outstanding shares of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company to HP Inc.'s stockholders (the "Separation").


HEWLETT PACKARD: Vieira Appeals Order Denying Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case
No. 5:13-cv-00119 (N.D. Cal.), Kilricanos Vieira on March 23,
2017, filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit from the District Court's Orders:

     -- Granting Defendant's Motion to Enforce Collective Action
        Waivers;

     -- Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and

     -- Granting Defendant's Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective.

The Court of Appeals set this schedule:

     -- Mediation Questionnaire due on March 31, 2017.

     -- Transcript ordered by April 24, 2017.

     -- Transcript due May 22, 2017.

     -- Appellant Kilricanos Vieira opening brief due July 3,
        2017.

     -- Appellee Hewlett-Packard Company answering brief due
        July 31, 2017.

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

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2017, for the quarter period ended January 31, 2017, that the
litigation alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
will be voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the parties'
settlements.

The purported class action entitled Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard
Company was filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in
installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or
hardware for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under
the FLSA. The plaintiffs also alleged that HP Inc. violated
California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly
classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions
Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they
claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under
state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology
Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins
from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. The court
denied plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification on March
29, 2016.

On April 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth
Circuit, which was denied. On July 13, 2016, the court granted
HP's motion to decertify the FLSA class that had been
conditionally certified on February 13, 2014. Currently, only the
claims of the three individual named plaintiffs remain in the
district court. HP has reached settlements with each of the three
individual named plaintiffs, pursuant to which this litigation
will be voluntarily dismissed.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is an industry leading
technology company that enables customers to go further, faster.
With the industry's most comprehensive portfolio, spanning the
cloud to the data center to workplace applications, its technology
and services help customers around the world make information
technology more efficient, more productive and more secure.  The
Company's customers range from small- and medium-sized businesses
to large global enterprises.

On November 1, 2015, the Company became an independent publicly-
traded company through a pro rata distribution by HP Inc. ("former
Parent" or "HPI"), formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP
Co."), of 100% of the outstanding shares of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company to HP Inc.'s stockholders (the "Separation").


HEWLETT PACKARD: Trial in "Wall" Class Suit to Begin May 22
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set to begin on May 22, 2017, in the Wall class action
lawsuit, according to Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company's March
9, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

The certified California class action and Private Attorney General
Act action titled Wall v. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company and
HP Inc. was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17,
2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed
against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 24, 2016.
The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive
compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in
violation of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the
court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future
motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to
decertify. Trial is set to begin on May 22, 2017.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is an industry leading
technology company that enables customers to go further, faster.
With the industry's most comprehensive portfolio, spanning the
cloud to the data center to workplace applications, its technology
and services help customers around the world make information
technology more efficient, more productive and more secure.  The
Company's customers range from small- and medium-sized businesses
to large global enterprises.

On November 1, 2015, the Company became an independent publicly-
traded company through a pro rata distribution by HP Inc. ("former
Parent" or "HPI"), formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP
Co."), of 100% of the outstanding shares of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company to HP Inc.'s stockholders (the "Separation").


HILLMANN CONSULTING: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Johnson and Evelyn Fotabong, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hillmann Consulting,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01756 (E.D. N.Y., March 29,
2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked as a project monitor.

Defendant is in the business of providing environmental consulting
and construction risk management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
   Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
   Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
   40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 943-9080
   Fax: (212) 943-9082


HILTI INC: S & J Suit Moved from E.D. Cal. to N.D. Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled S & J RENTALS, INC. d/b/a TWIN
CITIES EQUIPMENT RENTALS, a California corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HILTI, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00159-CVE-FHM (filed May 9, 2016), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma (Tulsa) on March 28, 2017.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00159-CVE-FHM to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Claire V Eagan.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the fraudulent and unfair business
practices of Defendant in connection with its sale of power tools
and construction equipment that include an automatic cut off
function.

The Defendant has engaged in a fraudulent scheme that is designed
to extort money from customers who purchase its power tools
through the use of an "Automatic Shutoff" function that is
incorporated into the design of its Tools. After a pre-determined
number of operational hours, the Automatic Shutoff Tools
altogether stop operating and cannot be restarted or otherwise
utilized by the purchaser unless and until the Tools are returned
to Hilti for ostensible "servicing, maintenance and repair." While
a "service indicator" light for the Tools is briefly referenced in
the Automatic Shutoff Tools' Operating Instructions Manual, Hilti
fails to disclose that the Tools cannot be turned
back on until they are returned to Hilti for "servicing."
Importantly, Hilti also fails to disclose that the Automatic
Shutoff Tools can only be sent to Hilti for "servicing" and will
only be "repaired" by Hilti if the consumer pays an exorbitant and
unreasonable "service" fee ranging from $300-$800.

Purchasers of these Tools reasonably expect to be able to service
them when and where they choose, including through in-house
servicing. They do not reasonably expect, nor have adequate notice
or warning, that Hilti's Tools will automatically shut down
regardless of whether any servicing is actually needed and will be
held hostage by Hilti until it is paid a ransom.[BN]

Hilti designs products, systems, and services for professionals in
construction, civil, energy, mechanical, electrical, steel and
metal, and building maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Kershaw, Esq.
          Stuart C. Talley, Esq.
          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 779 7000
          Facsimile: (916) 721 2501
          E-mail: bill@kctlegal.com
                  stuart@kctlegal.com
                  ian@kctlegal.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Timm" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties' motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims
in the lawsuit styled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et
al., are currently pending, according to the Company's March 9,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two
quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the
unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative
dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two
directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks
punitive damages and legal expenses.

The court, on January 28, 2013, dismissed all individual director
and officer defendants from the case and further dismissed three
of the six causes of action. The remaining causes of action
against the Company allege the Preferred B holders did not approve
amendments to its Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof
seek to recover two quarters of dividends and to elect two members
to the Board of Directors of the Company.

The Company and Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims and motions are currently
pending.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
incorporated in August 1995.  The Company is an established
nationwide independent residential mortgage lender.  The Company
originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Discovery in "Marentes" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently proceeding in the matter titled Marentes v.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant
and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., without prejudice.

Discovery is currently proceeding in this matter.

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

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
incorporated in August 1995.  The Company is an established
nationwide independent residential mortgage lender.  The Company
originates, sells and services residential mortgage loans.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Erdmann" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hans E. Erdmann, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Santosh
J. Vetticaden and Darryl S. Baker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02225 (S.D. N.Y., March 28, 2017) is a federal securities class
action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Insys securities between February 23, 2016, and March 15, 2017,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.

According to the complaint, through the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Insys had overstate its 2015
net revenue; (ii) Insys had misstated its sales allowances for
2016; (iii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Insys's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products,
primarily intended to assist cancer patients cope with the
symptoms of their disease and treatment or therapy.  The
Company has two marketed products, Subsys and Dronabinol SG
Capsule, which utilize Insys' sublingual spray drug delivery
technology and dronabinol formulation and manufacturing
capabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   733 Summer Street, Suite 304
   Stamford, CT 06901
   Tel: (203) 992-4523
   Fax: (212) 363-7171
   Email: shopkins@zlk.com


JOSEPH TUCCI: Dismissal of IBEW's Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, affirmed the
Superior Court's order dismissing the case captioned INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 129 BENEFIT FUND vs.
JOSEPH M. TUCCI & others (and eight consolidated cases), No. SJC-
12137 (Mass.).

The plaintiff, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local No. 129 Benefit Fund (IBEW) filed a complaint on October 15,
2015, as a direct action against members of EMC Corporation's
board of directors in their individual capacities.  Their first
amended class action complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by EMC's board of directors arising from a merger between EMC and
Denali Holding Inc. and Dell Inc. At the time that they commenced
these actions, the plaintiffs were shareholders of EMC; the
proposed merger would result in the shareholders receiving a cash
payment in exchange for their EMC stock.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that they bring the actions on
behalf of a class consisting of "all other shareholders of EMC . .
. who are or will be deprived of the opportunity to maximize the
value of their shares of EMC as a result of the [directors']
breaches of fiduciary duty and other misconduct."  The plaintiffs
asserted that the members of EMC's board of directors violated
their fiduciary duties, allegedly owed to both EMC and the
shareholders, by "(i) failing to take steps to maximize the value
of EMC stock; and (ii) agreeing to unreasonably preclusive deal
protection provisions, thereby hindering any potential bid that
may have been superior" to the sale of EMC to Dell.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754
(1974), after which eight other actions were consolidated with
IBEW's action.  After a hearing, the judge allowed the motion,
ruling that the board owed no fiduciary duty directly to the
shareholders in this case and that the action was necessarily
derivative because any alleged harm to shareholders was not
distinct from harm to the corporation.  He reasoned that there
were no allegations that any EMC shareholder would receive more
per share in this proposed transaction than any other shareholder,
nor were there allegations that any one shareholder or group of
shareholders controlled the company to assure a positive vote on
the transaction.  A judgment of dismissal was entered on December
24, 2015.  The plaintiffs timely filed an appeal.

On appeal, the principal question raised was whether the
plaintiffs, as shareholders who challenge the fairness or validity
of a proposed merger on the ground that it will effectively result
in the sale of EMC and for them a loss of personal property --
their EMC stock holdings -- for an inadequate price, must bring
their claim against the directors as a derivative action on behalf
of the corporation, or may bring it directly on their own behalf.

The Supreme Judicial Court found that, as the motion judge noted,
the wrong alleged by the plaintiffs, undervaluing EMC to secure
the merger and sale of the federation of companies, qualifies as a
direct injury to the corporation, the entity to which the
directors clearly owed a fiduciary duty of good faith and loyalty.
The Supreme Judicial Court explained that flowing from that
alleged injury is a claimed derivative injury to each shareholder,
whose individual shares, as a consequence of the asserted
undervaluing of EMC itself, are consequently undervalued as well.
The Supreme Judicial Court thus agreed with the motion judge that
the injury posited by the plaintiffs, and the alleged wrong
causing it, fit squarely within the framework of a derivative
action.  Because the plaintiffs did not bring their claim as a
derivative action, the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the
plaintiffs' complaint was properly dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/hQ2Ono from Leagle.com.

Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- (Michael G. Capeci --
mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com -- of New York, & Joel A. Fleming --
joel@blockesq.com -- also present) for International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local No. 129 Benefit Fund & others.

Thomas J. Dougherty -- dougherty@skadden.com -- (Kurt Wm. Hemr --
kurt.hemr@skadden.com -- also present) for Joseph M. Tucci &
others.

John Pagliaro -- jcpag@hotmail.com -- & Martin J. Newhouse, for
New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Ian D. Roffman -- iroffman@nutter.com -- & Matthew J. Connolly --
mconnolly@nutter.com -- for Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.


KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for May 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the final approval of the Securities Class Action
Settlement is set for May 11, 2017, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., said in its March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On December 18, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit (captioned Li v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
5:15-cv-05841-EJD) was filed against us in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, or the
Class Action Court, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws by our Company, Herb Cross, our former officer and Martin
Shkreli, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  On
December 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against us in the Class Action Court (captioned Sciabacucchi v.
KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-05992-CRB),
similarly alleging violations of the federal securities laws by
our Company and Mr. Shkreli.  On December 31, 2015, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Class Action
Court (captioned Isensee v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-06331-EJD) also alleging violation of the federal
securities laws by our Company, a former officer and Mr. Shkreli.
On April 18, 2016 an amended complaint was filed in the Isensee
suit, adding Herb Cross and Ronald Martell, our former executive
chairman as defendants. On April 28, 2016, the Class Action Court
consolidated these cases, which we refer to collectively as the
Securities Class Action Litigation, and appointed certain
plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Action Litigation were seeking damages of $20.0
million on behalf of all the affected members of the class
represented in the Securities Class Action Litigation, or the
Securities Class Action Members."

"On June 16, 2016, a settlement stipulation, or the Securities
Class Action Settlement, was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
Subject to the approval of the Class Action Court, the Securities
Class Action Settlement required us to issue 300,000 shares of
common stock and submit a payment of $250,000 the Securities Class
Action Members and advance insurance proceeds of $1.25 million to
the Securities Class Action Members.  We refer to the
consideration owed to the Securities Class Action Members under
the Securities Class Action Settlement as the Securities Class
Action Settlement Consideration.  Subject to the final approval of
the Securities Class Action Settlement, any Securities Class
Action Member is entitled to share in the Securities Class Action
Settlement Consideration.  The Securities Class Action Settlement
provides for releases and related injunctions to be granted for
the benefit of, among others, us, Ronald Martell, Herb Cross and
all of our past, present and future directors, officers and
employees, excluding Mr. Shkreli.  Alternatively, Securities Class
Action Members may exclude themselves from the Securities Class
Action Settlement and are thereby not bound by the terms of the
Securities Class Action Settlement nor entitled to receive any
amount of the Securities Class Acton Settlement Consideration.
Such Securities Class Action Members, to the extent they properly
exclude themselves from Securities Class Action Settlement and
have timely and properly filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy
case, may have certain rights under the Plan with respect to such
claims.  Pursuant to the Plan and Confirmation Order, such claims
are subordinated to the level of our common stock that was issued
and outstanding when our bankruptcy case was filed. Such claims
are also subject to our objection or other response."

"Our agreement to the Securities Class Action Settlement was not
in any way an admission of our wrongdoing or liability. On January
20, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Securities
Class Action Settlement and set a final approval hearing for May
11, 2017."

As of December 31, 2016 the 300,000 shares of the Company's common
stock have been issued and the $250,000 payment has been made.

KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing medicines for patients with neglected and
rare diseases, with an ancillary focus on pediatric conditions,
and on executing its Responsible Pricing Model in the
commercialization of its products that may be approved.  The
Company's lead product candidate is benznidazole for the treatment
of Chagas disease, a parasitic illness that can lead to long-term
heart, intestinal and neurological problems.


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Fekete" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, LP. The case is entitled as Feige Fekete, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. LTD Financial Services, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01703 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 27, 2017).

LTD Financial Services, L.P. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MARITIME MOBILE: "Vazquez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Angel Vazquez, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Maritime Mobile Communications, LLC doing business as Digital
Video Systems, the Defendant, Case No. 17-003430-CA-01, was
removed on March 27, 2017, from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21136-
RNS to the proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Robert N. Scola, Jr.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Maritime Mobile is doing business in the radiotelephone
communications industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          Jay Paul Lechner, Esq.
          WHITTEL MELTON LLC
          11020 Northcliffe Blvd.
          Spring Hill, FL 34608
          Telephone: (352) 683 2016
          lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          Daniel Joseph Butler, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                  daniel.butler@jacksonlewis.com


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GLORIA ROSSITER, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MCCARTHY
BURGESS & WOLFF, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00438-JPS
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: "Ebner" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final
approval of the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs in the
case captioned, SUSAN EBNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL
CREDIT CORP., et al., Defendant, Case No. 14-06882 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Susan Ebner filed a class action lawsuit on December 4,
2014, alleging that by disclosing her account number on the face
of the envelope, MMCC violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(8) of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Section 1692(f)(8)
provides that "using any language or symbol, other than the debt
collector's address, on any envelope when communicating with a
consumer by use of the mails" is an "unfair or unconscionable
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt."

The Plaintiff, through her proposed class counsel, and MMCC have
negotiated and agreed to a settlement of this class action. On
June 15, 2016 the Court preliminarily approved that settlement.

The proposed class was defined as "all persons located in (i) the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (ii) the State of New Jersey, or
(iii) the State of Delaware according to their last known address
from December 4, 2013 through August 1, 2015 who received one or
more letters from MMCC seeking to collect a consumer debt for
which the account number was visible through the glassine window
of the envelope."

On September 15, 2016 MMCC moved to continue the final approval
hearing and amend the Court's preliminary order approving the
class action settlement. MMCC's motion explained that the number
of settlement class members was smaller than initially thought at
the time of the Court's preliminary order. MMCC asked for more
time to meet the deadlines in the Court's order. Plaintiffs did
not oppose this motion. The Court granted MMCC's motion on
September 30, 2016. On December 29, 2016 Ebner filed a motion for
final approval of settlement.

Class counsel also moves for approval of attorneys' fees and costs
in the amount of $42,500.

In his Memorandum dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/Wv06uU from Leagle.com, Judge Pappert held that the
settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable," as required by
Rule 23(e)(2) and (3).

The Court also concludes that the proposed attorneys' fees do not
offend what is an otherwise fair settlement and awarded a total of
$47,343 of attorneys' fees and costs.

Susan Ebner is represented by Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. --
ERayz@kalraylaw.com -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC -- Gerald D. Wells,
III, Esq. -- gwells@cwglaw.com -- and -- Robert J. Gray, Esq. --
rgray@cwglaw.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP

Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation is represented by Brendan
H. Little, Esq. -- blittle@lippes.com -- LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER
FRIEDMAN LLP -- Charity A. Olson, Esq. -- tom@olsenlawgroup.com --
OLSON LAW GROUP


MIAMI BEACH MEDICAL: Faces "Diaz" FLSA Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Hildago Diaz, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Miami Beach Medical Transport LLC, a Florida Corporation and
Rodolfo Dumenigo MD PA d/b/a Miami Beach Medical Group, a Florida
professional association, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21159-JAL
(S.D. Fla., March 29, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a patient driver for
the medical clinics.

Medical Transport provides integrated, medical transportation to
the patients, facilities and communities.

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
   Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

   Isaac Mamane, Esq.
   Mamane Law LLC
   10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
   Miami, FL 33161
   Tel: (305) 773-6661
   Email: mamane@gmail.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Watson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Stephanie Watson, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Microsoft Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02243 (N.D. Ill.), denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice as
premature.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 24, 2017,
initial status hearing is set for May 3, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. in
courtroom 1241. The Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web
page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by
April 28, 2017 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences
procedure. If the defendant has not been served as of April 28,
2017, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status
report until the defendant is served. If the defendant files a
motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the joint status report,
the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status
report until after the Court rules on the pending motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jYN9Z8F3


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Winn Sues Over False Ad for Ginger Snaps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valorie Winn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Mondelez International, Inc. and Pak 'N Save, Inc.,
Case No. RG17854671 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 28, 2017), seeks to
put an end to the Defendants' practice of using various marketing
methods to falsely represent Ginger Snaps as healthful, made with
traditional natural ingredients, and not harmful to the
cardiovascular system. Contrary to these claims, Ginger Snaps
contained dangerous levels of PHO, and thus trans-fat.

Mondelez International, Inc. operates a confectionery, food, and
beverage company based in Deerfield, Illinois.

Pak 'N Save, Inc. operates a discount food warehouse chain with
its principal place of business in Pleasanton, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (313)293-7071
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              andrew@westonfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Judge Walter Certifies Class in "Martin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John F. Walter entered an order in the lawsuit styled as
Elisabeth Martin, the Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02168-JFW-SP (C.D. Cal.), granting
Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

   "all persons who, on or after October 13, 2012 (the 'Class
   Period'), purchased in California for personal or household
   use and not for resale or distribution, Roundup Weed & Grass
   Killer Concentrate Plus, or Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super
   Concentrate, in packaging whose label stated that the product
   'makes up to' a specified number of gallons as follows:

      Super Concentrate 35.2 fl. oz     "Makes Up to 23 Gallons"
      Super Concentrate 53.7 oz         "Makes Up to 35 Gallons"
      Super Concentrate - 64 fl. oz.    "Makes Up to 42 Gallons"
      Super Concentrate - 128 fl. oz.   "Makes Up to 85 Gallons"
      Concentrate Plus 32 oz.           "Makes Up to 10 Gallons"
      Concentrate Plus 36.8 oz          "Makes Up to 12 Gallons"
      Concentrate Plus 40 oz.           "Makes Up to 13 Gallons"
      Concentrate Plus 64 oz.           "Makes Up to 21 Gallons"
      Concentrate Plus 128 oz           "Makes up to 42 Gallons"

The Court appoints Plaintiff Elisabeth Martin as class
representative and The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC and
Jackson & Foster, LLC as class counsel.

The case claims for breach of express warranty and for violations
of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA shall be maintained as a class action on
behalf of the following class of plaintiffs:

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ytm9NsFD


MOPHIE INC: "Stotz" Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mophie Inc. on March 13, 2017, filed its answer and
affirmative defenses to the Amended Complaint in the case, Eric
Stotz and Alan Charles v. Mophie Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08898-GW-
FFM (C.D. Cal.).

In an order dated Feb. 27, 2017, Judge George H. Wu denied
Mophie's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

In an order dated Feb. 6, 2017, Judge Wu set this timeline:

     Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification May 1, 2017;

     Defendant's Opposition June 30, 2017;

     Plaintiff's Reply July 21, 2017;

     Hearing on Motion for Class Certification August 3, 2017 at
     8:30 a.m.

According to ZAGG Inc.'s March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles, individually and
on behalf of a purported class, filed on January 13, 2017, their
first amended class action complaint alleging that they purchased
certain external battery packs and that the battery packs for use
with their cells phones did not extend the life of their cell
phones' internal batteries as advertised and adversely affected
the phones' internal battery life. Plaintiffs allege violations of
California's unfair competition law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, New York's unlawful deceptive acts and practices
statute, and New York's false advertising law.

The Company says it will respond in due course and will defend the
claims and otherwise respond to the allegations. This matter is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

ZAGG(R) Inc. is an innovation leader in mobile tech accessories
for smartphones and tablets. ZAGG was created from the concept of
applying a clear film originally designed to protect military-
helicopter blades in harsh desert conditions to protect consumers'
mobile devices.


MRS BPO: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Rossiter" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GLORIA ROSSITER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS
BPO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00431-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class,
appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nK6HEBqv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


MRS BPO: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01733
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

MRS BPO, LLC operates as a third party collections firm
headquartered at 1930 Olney Ave, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003. [BN]

Christine M. Taylor is a pro se plaintiff.


NBEO: Maryland Court Dismisses Data Breach Suits
------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted dismissal of the cases captioned,
RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NAT'L BD. OF
EXAM'RS IN OPTOMETRY, INC., Defendant, and NICOLE MIZRAHI,
Plaintiff, v. NAT'L BD. OF EXAM'RS IN OPTOMETRY, INC., Defendant,
Case Nos. JKB-16-3025, JKB-16-3146 (D. Md.).

Two cases before the Court rest upon similar allegations by
different Plaintiffs, and they are the subjects of nearly
identical defense motions. Both cases seek to represent the same
class of similarly situated individuals. The causes of action
overlap between the cases, with some differences in state-law
theories of recovery. Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action
for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied
contract.

Plaintiffs Rhonda L. Hutton, Tawny P. Kaeochinda and Nicole
Mizrahi allege the Defendant, National Board of Examiners in
Optometry, Incorporated (NBEO), suffered a data breach sometime
before July 23, 2016, that the personally identifiable information
(PII) Plaintiffs had supplied to NBEO to register for exams in
order to obtain an optometry license was stolen, and that they
have incurred damage as a result.

Before the Court are NBEO's motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)6) or, in the
alternative, motions to strike pursuant to Rules 12(f) and
23(d)(1)(D). Plaintiffs have also filed motions to consolidate the
two cases.

In his Memorandum dated March 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/4wvIeR from Leagle.com, Judge Bredar concluded the
complaints must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction since all of Plaintiffs' causes of action are
premised upon their "naked assertion" of a data breach at NBEO and
since they have failed to support their complaints with sufficient
factual matter to establish Article III injury.

Nicole Mizrahi is represented by Donald J. Enright, Esq. --
denright@zlk.com -- LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP -- Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
-- malmstrom@whafh.com -- and -- Michael Liskow, Esq. --
liskow@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP

National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc. is represented by
Cynthia L. Maskol, Esq. -- cynthia.maskol@wilsonelser.com --
WILSON ELSER MARKOWITZ EDELMAN AND DICKER LLP


NEAL TRUCKING: "Poisson" Class Action Settlement Has Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order in the lawsuit
titled Ronald Poisson, the Plaintiff, v. Neal Trucking, Inc. et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.),
granting preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The settlement administrator shall mail the notice form to all
settlement class members within 10 calendar days from the date of
this order. The settlement class members shall have 40 calendar
days from the date of this order -- that is, 30 calendar days from
the date of the notice form mailing deadline -- to respond, oppose
the settlement, and/or choose to opt-out of the settlement.

The Counsel shall meet and confer and propose a deadline for
Defendants to ensure that the settlement fund is fully funded.
Counsel shall also propose a deadline for the settlement
administrator to begin distribution of settlement payments to
eligible class members.

The settlement agreement establishes a fund of $195,000 for the
settlement fund, which includes Class Counsel's attorneys' fees of
$48,750 and $10,000 in litigation costs, settlement administration
costs to Simpluris Inc. in the sum of up to$5,000, and a class
representative service award to Plaintiff Ronald Poisson of
$1,000. Those deductions leave a total of $130,250 to be
distributed, of which 81% is allocated to all class members and
19% is allocated to the 203 portion of the settlement for former
employee class members.

The settlement agreement states a maximum of $5,000 will be
deducted from the settlement fund and paid to Simpluris, Inc., the
settlement administrator, for the costs of administrating the
fund. Simpluris will be charged with administering the settlement
fund by distributing the notice packages, reviewing each claim
form, distributing amounts to qualified claimants and reporting,
on a weekly basis, to Class Counsel. Accordingly, the Court finds
the settlement administrator's costs reasonable for the purposes
of this motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=12EROziL


NATIONAL TRACTOR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO AZAEL MARTINEZ and SAUL SOTOMAYOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general
public, the Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL TRACTOR SERVICE, INC.; CO
SAMUEL ALARCON; and DOE 1 through 100, inclusive
the Defendants, Case No. BC655581 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 28,
2017), seeks recovery and restitution of unpaid overtime
compensation and meal and rest premiums under Labor Code under
Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs and other current and former employees of
Defendants employed as employee drivers ("Class") worked overtime
but were not paid overtime compensation, and Defendants failed to
provide them with meal and rest periods required by law, failed to
provide them with accurate wage statements and failed to pay all
wages they due after separation.

National Tractor is a grading contractor for Baldwin Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Class Cert. Sought in West Loop Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled WEST LOOP CHIROPRACTIC & SPORTS INJURY
CENTER, LTD., and WEST LOOP HEALTH & SPORTS PERFORMANCE CENTER,
LLC, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members defined herein,
the Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-
10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05856 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons with fax numbers, who during the Class Period,
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant North American
   Bancard, LLC promoting its goods or services for sale".

The Class Period is defined as April 6, 8, 12, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27,
28, May 4, 9, 12, 20, 25, 26, June 8, 23, August 4, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 18, and 23, 2016.

The Plaintiffs further asks that they be appointed class
representatives and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


OFF LEASE ONLY: Florida Court Allows TCPA Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, RAY MOHAMED, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFF LEASE ONLY, INC.,
a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-23352-Civ-
COOKE/TORRES (S.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held
that Plaintiff has standing to proceed in the action.

Plaintiff Ray Mohamed brings the class action lawsuit against
Defendant Off Lease Only, Inc., seeking damages and equitable
relief for Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff contends that Defendant,
through its alleged agent, sent him and others unsolicited text
messages and calls without their prior express consent. In
Plaintiff's case, he allegedly received text messages on his
cellular telephone from Defendant's marketer in response to an
online Craigslist advertisement he posted about selling his
automobile.

The Court requested briefing on whether Plaintiff had standing to
continue the matter in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), as revised (May
24, 2016).

In her Order dated March 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/h1mHzt from Leagle.com, Judge Cooke concluded that
the kind of alleged injury by Plaintiff is particularized and
concrete and is supported by the common law and legislative
pronouncements.

Ray Mohamed is represented by Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. --
mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- HIRALDO P.A. -- Seth Michael Lehrman,
Esq. -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- and -- Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. --
steve@pathtojustice.com -- FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS
FISTOS&LEHRMAN PL

            -- and --

      Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
      Sean Martin Holas, Esq.
      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr #235,
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954)589-0588

Off Lease Only, Inc. is represented by Franklin Lewis Zemel, Esq.
-- franklin.zemel@arnstein.com -- and -- Alan Richard Poppe, Esq.
-- ARNSTEIN& LEHR


ORACLE CORP: Colorado Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Troudt"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado approved and adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned, DEBORAH TROUDT, BRAD STAUF, SUSAN CUTSFORTH,
WAYNE SELTZER, MICHAEL HARKIN, MIRIAM WAGNER, and MICHAEL FOY,
individually and as representatives of a class of plan
participants, on behalf of the Oracle Corporation 401(k) Savings
and Investment Plan, Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, ORACLE
CORPORATION 401(K) COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-20. Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00175-REB-CBS (D. Colo.).

Both the recommendation and the magistrate judge's comments to the
parties at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, filed February
27, 2017), indicated that the magistrate believed the case to be
extraordinarily close and exceptionally context-specific.

In an Order dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/pZhj7x  from Leagle.com, Judge Blackburn concurred
with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the allegations of the
complaint are sufficient to state plausible claims, which should
not be dismissed at this early juncture. Because there is no
deadline to amend the pleadings, the Court would be hard-pressed
to deny any request to amend which plaintiffs might make were
their present complaint dismissed, Judge Blackburn held.

Brad Stauf, et al., are represented by:

       Heather Lea, Esq.
       James Redd, Esq.
       Kurt Charles Struckhoff, Esq.
       Michael Armin Wolff, Esq.
       Troy Andrew Doles, Esq.
       Jerome Joseph Schlichter, Esq.
       SCHLICHTERBOGARD AND DENTON, LLP
       120 West Main Street
       Belleville, IL 62220
       Tel:(618)632-3329

Oracle Corporation, et al. are represented by Brian T. Ortelere,
Esq. -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Christopher Joseph
Boran, Esq. -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com -- and -- Jeremy
P. Blumenfeld, Esq. -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS &BOCKIUS, LLP -- William Craig Berger, Esq. --
bberger@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP


OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Dahhan" Securities Class Action in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fadi Dahhan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ovascience, Inc., Michelle Dipp and Jeffrey
E. Young, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10511 (D. Mass., March 24,
2017) seeks to recover damages as result of the Defendants'
federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the complaint.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of OvaScience between January 8, 2015 and March 26,
2015, inclusive (the Class Period), alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

OvaScience is a fertility company that claims to have discovered a
therapy through which to increase in vitro fertilization (IVF)
live birth rates by extracting mitochondria (a substance in egg
cells which is generally viewed as the energy source of the egg)
from egg precursor cells (immature egg cells found in the
protective outer layer of a woman's own ovaries) and injecting the
same into the mature egg being utilized in the IVF process. This
process, the AUGMENTSM treatment (AUGMENT), is the Company's sole
marketable product.

The complaint says throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects. In particular, Defendants caused the Company to issue
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among
other things, that: (1) the science behind AUGMENT had not been
scientifically validated; (2) the Company was unable to achieve
the purported success rates it claimed; (3) the reasons why the
Company moved its studies outside of the United States (due to
failure to achieve FDA approval); and (4) that at all relevant
times, the Company's profitability and prospects was false and
misleading.

After the truth was revealed concerning AUGMENT treatment results,
the Company's shares plummeted $17.14 from $48.29 on March 26,
2015 to $31.15 on April 1, 2015, a loss of approximately 35% on
unusually heavy volume of approximately 1.9 million shares.

OvaScience, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel treatments
for infertility, with the primary goal of creating "healthy live
births."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
   Matorin Law Office, LLC
   18 Grove Street, Suite 5
   Wellesley, MA 02482
   Tel: (781) 453-0100
   Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com
        - and -

   Edward W. Miller, Esq.
   Lifshitz & Miller LLP
   821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 493-9780
   Email: edmilleresq@aol.com


PALMS SOUTH: Face "Health" Suit FMLA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Daniel Health, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Palms South Beach, Inc. d/b/a The Palms Hotel &
Spa, a Florida for Profit Corporation, KSJ Palms, LLC a Florida
Limited Liability Company and NSM Palms, LLC a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21173-JEM (S.D.
Fla., March 29, 2017) seeks to recover damages against the
Defendants for violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The complaint says Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's right to
take FMLA leave, failed to maintain Plaintiff's medical
information in a confidential manner, failed to provide Plaintiff
with notice of his rights under the FMLA, and discriminated and
retaliated against Plaintiff because he took FMLA leave and would
need additional leave.

Plaintiff was employed as a full time bellman.

Defendants are engaged in the hotel industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul M, Botros, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
   600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: 954-318-0268
   Fax: 954-327-3016
   Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com


PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit initiated by Vincent Caruso, et
al., remains pending in Louisiana, PBF Holding Company LLC said in
its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 2, 2011, prior to the Company's ownership of the
Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent Caruso, et al. v.
Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself
and other Louisiana residents who live or own property in St.
Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly
contaminated and who allegedly suffered any personal or property
damages as a result of an emission of spent catalyst, sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the Chalmette refinery on
September 6, 2010. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries,
symptoms, and property damage as a result of the release.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and
costs.

In August 2015, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for
property damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning. On April
12, 2016, the trial court rendered judgment limiting damages
ranging from $100 to $500 for home cleaning and $25 to $75 for
vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs. The trial court found
Chalmette Refining and co-defendant Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"),
to be solitarily liable for the damages. Chalmette Refining and
Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of the judgment on the mini-
trial, which appeal is pending. There is no stay pending appeal.
The potential class members have not been identified as the
parties are negotiating a claims process for claims such as home
cleaning, vehicle cleaning, and alleged personal injury. The
claims process would also include a class notice to identify
potential class members.

Depending upon the ultimate class size and the nature of the
claims, the Company says the outcome may have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, or cash flows.

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent
petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation
fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other
petroleum products in the United States.  The Company sells its
products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West
Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the
United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other
international destinations.


PBF HOLDING: June 19 Scheduling Conference in "Goldstein" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, Arnold Goldstein et al v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02477 (C.D. Cal.), was
reassigned due to self-recusal pursuant to General Order 16-05 by
Judge Christina A. Snyder on March 31, 2017.  The Case is
transferred from Judge Snyder to the calendar of Judge Dale S.
Fischer for all further proceedings.

In an April 3, 2017 Order, Judge Fischer set a Scheduling
Conference for June 19, 2017.  The Court directed the parties to
submit a Joint Report that must include the completed Schedule of
Pretrial and Trial dates.  The Lead trial counsel are ordered to
appear in person unless counsel have been excused by the Court.

PBF Holding Company LLC is facing a purported class action lawsuit
commenced by Arnold Goldstein, et al., according to the Company's
March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the Company's parents, PBF Energy Inc. and
PBF Energy Company LLC, the Company and the Company's
subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining
Company LLC and the manager of the Company's Torrance refinery
along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a
class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf
of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and
others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and
alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a
continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a
continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and
trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was
then owned and operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance
Refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to the Company's
acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint.

The Company was served with the lawsuit on March 1, 2017 and has
not had an opportunity to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP
explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery.

The Company says it cannot currently estimate the amount of its
potential liability.

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent
petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation
fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other
petroleum products in the United States.  The Company sells its
products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West
Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the
United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other
international destinations.


PENNSYLVANIA: Corrections Department Faces "Randall" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.A. DEPT. OF CORR.
The case is styled as RAMSEY RANDALL and DANIEL WERNER, AND ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, the Plaintiffs, v. P.A. DEPT. OF
CORR., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01369-GJP (E.D.
Pa., Mar. 27, 2017).  The case is assigned to Hon. Gerald J.
Pappert.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the Pennsylvania
state agency that is responsible for the confinement, care and
rehabilitation of approximately 51,000 inmates at state
correctional facilities funded by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The agency has its headquarters in Hampden Township,
Cumberland County in Greater Harrisburg, near Mechanicsburg.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: Noteholders Voluntarily Dismiss Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit initiated by noteholders was
voluntarily dismissed, according to PetroQuest Energy, Inc.'s
March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 27, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of holders of the
2017 Notes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the February
2016 debt exchange, the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act
of 1939, the indenture governing the 2017 Notes and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting itself and a
minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers
("QIBs"). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the February
2016 debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under
Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly
enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing
indebtedness, extending the maturity date of its long term debt
and reducing the value of the 2017 Notes. The lawsuit seeks
damages and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief
that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of
the 2021 Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange
resulted in a default under the indenture for the 2017 Notes. In
August 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

On January 25, 2017, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend against each of
the pending claims. At this time, the Company is unable to express
an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc., is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the state of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: PQ LLC Defends Class Suit by Royalty Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
PetroQuest Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Oklahoma by royalty owners, according to
the Company's March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On October 25, 2016, the Company's subsidiary, PetroQuest Energy,
L.L.C. ("PQ LLC"), and another exploration and production company
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of royalty owners in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that PQ LLC and
the other defendant underpaid royalties or did not pay royalties
by various means. The lawsuit seeks actual, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend against each of
the pending claims. At this time, the Company is unable to express
an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc., is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the state of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: PQ LLC Defends Class Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
PetroQuest Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary is defending a putative class
action lawsuit pending in Oklahoma, according to the Company's
March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On October 11, 2016, the Company's subsidiary, PetroQuest Energy,
L.L.C. ("PQ LLC"), and another exploration and production company
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of royalty owners in the state district court in Hughes
County, Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that PQ LLC and the other
defendant failed to pay interest with respect to untimely royalty
payments. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an
accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
On November 28, 2016, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend against each of
the pending claims. At this time, the Company is unable to express
an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any.

PetroQuest Energy, Inc., is an independent oil and gas company
incorporated in the state of Delaware with primary operations in
Texas, Louisiana and the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.


PHARM-SAVE INC: "Savidge" Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrea K. Savidge and Beth A.
Lynch, individually, and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Pharm-Save, Inc.,
doing business as Neil Medical Group, and Neil Medical Group,
Inc., formerly known as: Britthaven of Onslow, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 17-CI-001134, was removed from the Jefferson
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky (Louisville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-00186-TBR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell.

Pharm-Save was founded in 1984. The Company's line of business
includes wholesale distribution of prescription and proprietary
drugs and toiletries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
          807 W. Market Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (646) 783 9810
          Facsimile: (502) 585 3539
          E-mail: peter.jannace@gmail.com

               - and -

          Teddy B. Gordon, Esq.
          807 W. Market Street
          Louisville, KY 40202-2625
          Telephone: (502) 585 3534
          Facsimile: (502) 585 3539
          E-mail: tbearaty@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Byron N. Miller, Esq.
          Joseph A. Wright, Esq.
          Michael J. Bender, Esq.
          THOMPSON MILLER & SIMPSON PLC
          734 West Main Street, Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 585 9900
          Facsimile: (502) 585-9993
          E-mail: bmiller@tmslawplc.com
                  jwright@tmslawplc.com
                  mbender@tmslawplc.com

               - and -

          Mitchel Terence Denham, Esq.
          KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1024 Capital Center Drive
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Telephone: (502) 696 5405
          Facsimile: (502) 573 8316
          E-mail: mitchel.denham@ag.ky.gov


PIRON LLC: Faces "Ali" Suit in Mich. Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Suhail Ali, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. Piron, LLC,
Steve Hannah, Caraig Monroe, Reynolds Quality Installations, LLC.
Roderick Reynolds Jr., Aero Communications, Inc. and Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
11012-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 30, 2017) seeks payment of unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wage and attorneys' fees for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as cable technicians.  Defendants
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors, thus denying
them the protections of employees under the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Piron LLC and Reynolds Quality are subcontractor companies.

Aero Communication contracts with Comcast to perform
telecommunication installations and repair services for Comcast's
customers in Michigan.

Aero Communication acts as a General Contractor and contracts with
subcontracting companies like Piron and Reynolds Quality to supply
Comcast with workers.

Comcast is a global media and technology company with two primary
businesses, Comcast Cable and NBC Universal.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
   Omar Badr, Esq.
   The Law Officer of Bryan Yaldou, PLLC
   2300 Telegraph, Suite 5
   Brownstown, MI 48134
   Tel: (734) 692-9200
   Fax: (734) 692-9201
   Email: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


PIZZA & PITA: Faces "Santis" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pizza & Pita 34th,
Inc. The case is titled as Roberto Cruz Santis, On behalf of
himself and On behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Pizza & Pita 34th, Inc., Jointly and Severally; Magdy Mazrovea,
Jointly and Severally; and Syed Mohammad, Joint and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02212 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 27, 2017).

The Defendant is a restaurant serving mild, medium or hot, with
celery, blue cheese dressing & pita bread.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: settlement class Sought in "Klippel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUSSELL KLIPPEL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and CATHERINE M. HEDGEMAN, ESQ., the
Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01061-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will moves the Court in Albany, New York, for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement as fair,
      reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the
      Settlement Class;

   2. certifying a settlement class defined as follows (pending
      final approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court):

      a. Natural persons;

      b. who were sued by PRA;

      c. in a state court consumer collection action;

      d. brought in the Northern District of New York;

      e. in a city court in this District;

      f. in an action in which Hedgeman represented PRA;
         in which a summons misrepresented the state court's
         jurisdiction over the defendant by stating in the
         summons, in relevant part: "BASIS FOR VENUE: Defendant
         resides in jurisdiction of CITY OF" [or any
         substantially similar statement;

      g. in which the address of the state court defendant's
         residence is listed in the summons and/or complaint, and
         is outside the jurisdiction of the relevant city court;
         and

      h. in which the summons was filed within one year of
         the initiation of the instant class action.

   3. approving the Notice and the Notice Plan as contained
      within the Settlement Agreement;

   4. setting a date by which Notice must be sent;

   5. appointing Russel Klippel as Class Plaintiff;

   6. appointing attorneys Daniel A. Schlanger (of Kakalec &
      Schlanger, LLP) and Anthony J. Pietrafesa, as Class
      Counsel;

   7. scheduling a final approval hearing under Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) (the "Final Fairness Hearing")
      after the Notice period has expired so that the Court can
      consider any objections to the settlement, approve the
      class settlement, and consider Class Counsel's applications
      for attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive awards
      directing notice to those eligible to opt-out of the class;
      and

   8. dismissing, without prejudice, all claims as against the
      Individual Defendant, Catherine M. Hedgeman.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7mtmxT7a

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
          85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 2500 6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612 7996
          E-mail: dschlanger@kakalec-schlanger.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq.
          ANTHONY J. PIETRAFESA ATTORNEY AT LAW
          721 University Building
          120 East Washington Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (518) 218 0851
          Facsimile: (518) 514 1241
          E-mail: ajp@ajp1law.com


PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: 3 Shareholder Suits vs. Salix Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits filed by shareholders of
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., remain pending, Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In February 2011, the Company licensed its first commercial drug,
RELISTOR(R) (methylnaltrexone bromide) subcutaneous injection for
the treatment of opioid induced constipation, to Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.). In September 2014 RELISTOR
received an expanded approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of OIC in patients taking opioids
for chronic non-cancer pain. On July 19, 2016, the FDA approved
RELISTOR Tablets for the treatment of OIC in adults with chronic
non-cancer pain, for which the Company received a $50.0 million
development milestone payment from Valeant in the third quarter of
2016.

The Company said: "Under our license agreement with Valeant, we
are dependent on Valeant for compliance with these regulatory
requirements as they apply to RELISTOR. Valeant's subsidiary Salix
disclosed that in February 2013 it received a subpoena from the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
requesting documents regarding its sales and promotional practices
for RELISTOR and certain of its other products, that it is
continuing to respond to the subpoena and intends to cooperate
fully with the subpoena and related government investigation,
which has and will continue to increase its legal expenses and
might require management time and attention Salix subsequently has
become the subject of an SEC investigation and, beginning on
November 7, 2014, the target of three putative class action
lawsuits filed by shareholders of Salix."

Valeant has indicated that as of the filing of its report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, it cannot predict the
outcome or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other
legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies
that may be imposed on Salix or Valeant arising out of the SEC
investigation. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to
Valeant's financial condition or results of operations, or ability
to meet its royalty or milestone obligations to Progenics.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop
innovative medicines and other technologies to target and treat
cancer.  The Company's pipeline includes: (1) therapeutic agents
designed to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA and 1095); (2) PSMA-
targeted imaging agents for prostate cancer (1404 and PyLTM); and
(3) imaging analysis tools. Our first commercial product, RELISTOR
(methylnaltrexone bromide) for opioid-induced constipation, is
partnered with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Dismissal of "Lopez-Negron" Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, vacated the
Law Division's order dismissing the case captioned ELIZABETH
LOPEZ-NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE
FREEDOM INSURANCE COMPANY, and DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Respondents, Docket No. A-1632-15T4 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.).

The complaint pleads various causes of action.  They essentially
contended that Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive
Garden State Insurance Company, Progressive Freedom Insurance
Company, and Drive New Jersey Insurance Company acted improperly
by causing Lopez-Negron and other customers through its website to
purchase online "health-first" automobile insurance policies, even
though Medicare and Medicaid recipients such as Lopez-Negron are
not eligible to utilize those government programs for their
primary medical coverage in the event of a motor vehicle accident.
The complaint further alleged that Progressive acted improperly in
initially rejecting claims for medical services that Lopez-Negron
incurred after being injured in a motor vehicle accident, thereby
forcing her to present those claims in the first instance
inappropriately to Medicare.

In an order dated November 5, 2015, the Law Division dismissed
Lopez-Negron's complaint against Progressive pursuant to Rule 4:6-
2(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  Lopez-Negron appealed the Law Division's order.

Applying the well-established principles of Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989),
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division concluded
that the trial court dismissed Lopez-Negron's claims prematurely.
The Appellate Division found that, among other things, the court
decided fact-dependent matters of knowledge, intent, feasibility
and reasonableness improvidently before an answer was filed or any
discovery was pursued.  The dismissal order was therefore vacated
and the case remanded to the Law Division.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 6, 2017, order is available
at https://is.gd/UgpIyR from Leagle.com.

John K. Weston -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Diamond,
LLC of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the
cause for appellant (Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC, Dilworth Paxson,
LLP, and Mr. Weston, attorneys; Mr. Weston, Jeremy E. Abay --
jabay@sackslaw.com -- Thomas S. Biemer -- tbiemer@dilworthlaw.com
-- and Jerry R. DeSiderato -- jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com -- on
the briefs).

Michael K. Loucks -- michael.loucks@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP of the Massachusetts bar, admitted pro
hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (Carl D. Poplar, P.A.
and Mr. Loucks, attorneys; Mr. Loucks and Kara E. Fay (Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP) of the Massachusetts bar,
admitted pro hac vice, of counsel and on the briefs; Carl D.
Poplar, on the briefs).


RAZZLE DAZZLE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Certification of Barbers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROSA ROMERO and LUIS MATEO, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. RAZZLE DAZZLE
BARBERSHOP, INC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP II, INC., RAZZLE DAZZLE
BARBERSHOP MIDTOWN, LLC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOBE, INC.,
RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOMI, LLC., and ELENA LINARES,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24873-RNS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to issue an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former Barbers who worked for Defendant in the
      last three years and who were not paid overtime
      compensation for their hours worked over 40 each week";

   b. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to the undersigned counsel within 14 days of the
      Order granting this Motion a list containing the full
      names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
      addresses of putative class members who worked for
      Defendants between November 2013 and the present;

   c. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial notice,
      in both English and Spanish, to all individuals whose names
      appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by
      first-class mail;

   d. directing Defendants to post at all of its business
      locations located within Florida, a copy of the initial
      notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, in both
      English and Spanish;

   e. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, in both English and Spanish, to all individuals
      whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants'
      counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the
      Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the
      instant action;

   f. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel a total of 60 days from
      the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
      Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form; and

   g. such other and further relief as the Court deems just
      under the circumstances.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oLu8fP3H

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: "Gallas" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Gallas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ProNai Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01740, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on
March 29, 2017.

ProNAi Therapeutics is a drug development company focused on
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
   John C. Gray, Esq.
   Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
   555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 892-9200
   Fax: (213) 892-9494
   Email: Joshua.Lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com
          John.Gray@nortonrosefullbright.com

        - and -

   Robin D. Adelstein, Esq.
   Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
   1301 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 318-3000
   Fax: (212) 318-3400
   Email: robin.adelstein@nortonrosefulbright.com

        - and -

   Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
   Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
   98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 474-5201
   Fax: (512) 536-4598
   Email: peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com


R & D TIERRA: "Espinoza" Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. R & D Tierra Caliente, Inc. d/b/a
Panaderia Tierra Caliente, Ruben Arguello, Individually and d/b/a
Tierra Caliente #2 and Fernando Duque, Individually and d/b/a
Tierra Caliente #2, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00968 (M.D. Fla.,
March 29, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a baker.

Defendants were engaged in production of goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
   The Buenker Law Firm
   2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
   Houston, TX 77018
   Tel: 713-868-3388
   Fax: 713-683-9940
   Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

        - and -

   Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
   The Buenker Law Firm
   2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
   Houston, TX 77018
   Tel: 713-868-3388
   Fax: 713-683-9940
   Email: vijay@buenlerlaw.com


REVCLAIMS LLC: "Garrison" Dismissed for Lack of Standing
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Holmes of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas denied John F. Lackey's motion to
intervene in the case captioned, SUE GARRISON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. REVCLAIMS,
LLC; ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL, INC.; ST. BERNARD'S COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL CORP.; BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST HEALTH HOSPITALS; LAWRENCE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; WHITE RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; and JOHN DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:16CV00253 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Sue Garrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, commenced the putative class action against the
defendants alleging that the defendants' billing and collection
practices violate the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Garrison also
asserts common law claims of breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
process, and civil conspiracy.

In August 2013, Garrison was injured in a car accident, and
another driver was deemed to be at-fault. Garrison was taken to
NEA Baptist Memorial Hospital and received emergency inpatient
treatment there. Over the next year, Garrison underwent several
surgeries and received ongoing treatment at St. Vincent's
Infirmary.  After her final surgery, Garrison was referred to St.
Bernard's Hospital, Inc., (not St. Bernard's Community Hospital)
for physical therapy.  St. Bernard's required Garrison to assign
to St. Bernard's the right to directly bill her qualified health
plan.  Instead of billing Garrison's qualified health plan for the
treatment she received, St. Bernard's contracted with RevClaims,
LLC, to collect on her account. RevClaims did not seek recovery
from Garrison's qualified health plan either but instead sought
recovery by placing a lien on Garrison's third-party claim against
the at-fault driver.

Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., RevClaims, LLC, Baptist
Health, Baptist Health Hospitals, St. Bernard's Community Hospital
Corp., Lawrence Memorial Hospital, and White River Health System,
Inc., all move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) or, alternatively, to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6).

The defendants argue that Garrison does not have standing to sue
them.  Defendants Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals, St.
Bernard's Community Hospital, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, and
White River Health System argue that Garrison was not injured by
any conduct traceable to them.  Defendants St. Bernard's Hospital
and RevClaims argue that Garrison has not suffered an injury in
fact.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/5pm17d from Leagle.com, Judge Holmes concluded that
Garrison has no standing with respect to any of her claims and she
also does not have standing on the conspiracy claim.

Sue Garrison is represented by Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Esq. --
jowen@mwblawyers.com -- MCGUIRE WOOD & BISETTE LAWFIRM

            -- and --

      Brandon W. Lacy, Esq.
      LACY LAW FIRM
      600 S Main St, Jonesboro, AR 72401
      Tel:(870) 931-3101

St Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation, et al. are
represented by Paul D. Waddell, Esq. -- pwaddell@wcjfirm.com --
and -- Sam Waddell, Esq. -- swaddell@wcjfirm.com -- WADDELL, COLE
& JONES, PLLC

Baptist Health, et al. are represented by James D. Robertson, Esq.
-- jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com -- and -- Robert L. Henry, III,
Esq. -- rhenry@barberlawfirm.com -- BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC


ROMANOFF FLOOR: "Bailey" Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bailey, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Romanoff
Floor Covering, Inc., a Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00685-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal.,
March 30, 2017) seeks damages from Defendant for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

The Complaint claims that Defendant has obtained consumer reports
without proper authorization because the authorization and
disclosure form signed by Plaintiff failed to comply with the
requirements of the FCRA.

The FCRA requires a signed authorization and disclosure from the
applicant, sometimes referred to as a "consent" form. The
authorization and disclosure form must be executed and signed by
the applicant prior to an employer requesting or conducting a
background check.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant Romanoff Floor Covering, Inc. in
California as an Installer.

Defendant provides flooring installation and bathroom renovation
services for the nation's largest big box retailer, The Home
Depot.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
   Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
   Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
   Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232


ROOSEVELT HOTEL: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roosevelt Hotel
Realty LLC.  The case is captioned as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Roosevelt Hotel Realty LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 27, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUBY CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cruz and Oswaldo Fagoada, Plaintiffs v. Ruby Construction
Associates, LLC, AV, Juan Miguel Constanza and Vanessa Constanza,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00349 (E.D. Va., March 24, 2017) is a
collection action against the Defendants seeking to recover
damages as a result of wages and overtime violation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to work on commercial
construction projects.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operated an illegal
scheme that profited on the backs of skilled workers. They made
promises when hiring workers but refused to pay the workers their
wages owed, it adds.

RCA is engaged in performing construction work.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Edward R. Brown, Esq.
   Wiley Rein LLP
   1776 K Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 719-7580
   Fax: (202) 719-7049
   Email: erbrown@wileyrein.com


SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Failed to Pay Wages, "Beckett" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BECKETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMARITAN VILLAGE, INC. d/h/a
SAMARITAN DAYTOP VILLAGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
704110/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks to recover
underpayments based on the Defendant's failure to pay straight or
agreed upon wages for all hours worked as provided by the New York
Labor Law (NYLL), as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs
of the action, and such other legal and equitable relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and on
behalf of two subclasses of current and former employees employed
by Samaritan Village, Inc. d/b/a Samaritan Daytop Village, Inc. in
the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six
years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such
further date as the practices complained of are discontinued (the
"Class Period").

Subclass is comprised of current and former housing specialists of
Defendant ("Housing Specialists") who were not paid for work done
during meal breaks, for work done before the start of their shift,
for work done from home and for work done on days off. Subclass 2
is comprised of current and former case managers of Defendant
("Case Managers") who were not paid for work done during meal
breaks and before the start of their shift.

The Defendant by virtue of its management and control over the
wages and work of its Housing Specialists and Case Managers is
classified as an "employer" under (NYLL). The Defendant has
engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage
practices for Subclass 1 members. These practices include: (a)
requiring Housing Specialists to perform work without compensation
during meal breaks; (b) requiring Housing
Specialists to perform work without compensation before the start
of their shift; (c) requiring Housing Specialists to perform work
without compensation from home and on days off; (d) failing to pay
Housing Specialists at their straight or agreed upon rate for all
hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (e) failing to pay Housing
Specialists overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and (f) failing to
provide accurate wage statements.

Samaritan Village has been improving the quality of life of New
Yorkers facing adversity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Dee" Sues Over Defective Phones
-----------------------------------------------------
Dior Dee and Cory Raymond, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., a New York Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, a
Foreign Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00648-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal., March 28, 2017) seeks damages against the Defendant
Samsung for its failure to recall dangerous products and failure
to warn consumers of the dangers they pose.

The Complaint says the S7 and S7 Edge, as well as the Note7, all
pose a risk of overheating, fire and explosion as they were
designed, engineered, developed, manufactured, produced and/or
assembled in a substantially similar manner to the Note7. While
Samsung has recalled the Note7, it has not done so with respect to
the Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edge (the "Subject Phones").

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   James R. Patterson, Esq.
   Patterson Law Group
   402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 756-6990
   Fax: (619) 756-6991
   Email: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Farmer" Sues Over Defective Note 7 Phone
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Farmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00564-MEM (M.D. Pa., March 30, 2017)
seeks to recover damages for Defendant's strict liability,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied
warranty and violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

The complaint says the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable
care with respect to the design, development, manufacture,
production, testing, inspection, marketing and/or sale of the Note
7's by, among other things, failing to design and/or manufacture
the Note 7's in a manner to ensure that under normal usage,
conditions and applications, consumers would not suffer damages.

Plaintiff purchased a Note7 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and suffered damages as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is engaged in the business of
distributing, marketing and selling smartphones and other products
throughout the United States and this District. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
   Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
   707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: 412-281-7229
   Email: arihin@peircelaw.com

          - and -

   Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
   Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
   Levin Sedran & Berman
   510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: 215-592-1500

         - and -

   Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
   Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III PC
   1 Pine West Plaza #109
   Albany, NY 12205
   Tel: 518-434-1718


SBE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Aliav" Suit over Discretionary Gratuity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALON ALIAV, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SBE
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BC655401 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of
falsely advertising its food, meal, and associated charges and
fees and to obtain redress for all California purchasers ("Class
Members") who purchased, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, an item from one of Defendant's order menus.

According to the Complaint, the Defendant represents on its menus,
which are distributed in every hotel room and at Defendants'
restaurants that gratuity is not included, and lies within the
hotel guest's discretion.  The Defendant furthers this
representation by providing purchasers with a line item for a
gratuity. However, such affirmative written statements are
objectively false. In actual fact, a 20% fixed gratuity is already
added to the purchasers' bill prior to the purchaser ever
receiving it with no option for the purchaser to modify this
percentage. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised to
Plaintiff and others similarly situated that the gratuity is not
included and lies within the hotel guest's discretion in order to
extract extra funds from Plaintiff and similarly situated
purchasers. Defendant then deceptively misleads consumers by
asking for a discretionary gratuity from consumers on their bills,
in addition to the 20% mandatory gratuity that is added to the
bill as a required service charge.

The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated caused them to provide Defendant with
additional funds, which Plaintiff and others similarly situated
would not have provided absent these misrepresentations by
Defendant and its employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated
California consumer protection statutes.

The Defendant is a Nevada limited liability company and is engaged
in the business of hotel ownership and management with a large
share of its business done in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOCIAL AGENCY: Faces "Melingonis" Suit over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Social Agency, Inc.,
A.K.A. Local Hype 365, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00624-JAH-
JMA (S.D. Cal., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks to recover for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thus invading Plaintiff's privacy.

On March 10, 2017, Mr. Melingonis received a telephone call on
his cellular telephone from Defendant, in which Defendant utilized
an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), using an "artificial
or prerecorded voice". The call to Mr. Melingonis' cellular
telephone number (ending in 9812) from Defendant came from phone
number: (619) 929-5700. During the call from Defendant to Mr.
Melingonis's cellular telephone, an artificial or prerecorded
voice directed Mr. Melingonis to "press 1 to start
receiving local leads." Plaintiff pressed 1 as instructed. The
Plaintiff had not provided his cellular telephone number to
Defendant. Plaintiff was not a customer of Defendant. Plaintiff
had no "established business relationship" with Defendant. These
telephone calls made by Defendant or their agents were in
violation of TCPA.

Social Agency provides internet marketing services including
graphic design, and website design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOLE TRANSPORT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Escobar, an individual, and all other similarly situated
employees v. Sole Transport, L.L.C. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC655396 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 28, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages for all
hours worked, failure to provide duty-free meal periods and
failure to pay one additional hour of pay at the employee's
regular rate for each day that a duty-free meal period was not
provided.

Sole Transport, L.L.C. owns and operates a freight shipping and
trucking company in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Omid Nosrati, Esq.
      Tatiana Toroyan, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI
      1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 553-5630
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5691
      E-mail: omid@nosratilaw.com
              tatiana@nosratilaw.com


SOUTH FLORALS: Faces "Bedoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mayra A. Bedoya, and others similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. South Florals DC, LLC, Samuel D. Noriega and Daniel
L. Sanchez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21157-KMW
(S.D. Fla., March 28, 2017) seeks to recover from Defendants
minimum and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver.

Defendant operated as fresh flowers shop. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
   Zandro E. Palma, P.A.
   9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (305) 446-1500
   Fax: (305) 446-1502
   Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SOUTHEAST TITLE: Faces "Drinosky" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Drinosky, on behalf of herself and others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff v. Southeast Title of the Suncoast, Inc., a
Florida Profit Company and James G. Smith, Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00735-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., March 29, 2017) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a Title Processor and Closer by
Defendants.

Defendant is a retail bakery located in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
   Jason M. Melton, Esq.
   Whittel & Melton, LLC
   One Progress Plaza
   200 Central Avenue, #400
   St. Petersburg, FL 33701
   Tel: (727) 822-1111
   Fax: (727) 898-2001
   Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
          leachnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
          shelley@theFLlawfirm.com
          kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Ubaldi v. Sallie Mae Remains Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation
("Sallie Mae"), et al., remains pending in California, Southwest
Bancorp, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 9, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class;
however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to
redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23,
2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the
renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of
improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect
to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties,
which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its
appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.

The Company says Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to
any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by
Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any
such claims.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc., is a financial holding company
headquartered in Stillwater, Oklahoma, for its banking subsidiary,
Bank SNB, a state-chartered member bank.  The Company was
organized in 1981 as the holding company for Bank SNB, which was
chartered in 1894.  The Company is registered as a financial
holding company.


SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Ballantyne" TCPA Breach Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ballantyne, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Spark Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-11018-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich., March 30, 2017) seeks damages
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Complaint says Defendant Spark Energy, Inc. ("Spark")
initiated multiple telemarketing calls to both a residential
telephone number and cellular telephone number of Mr. Ballantyne's
both of which he placed on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Defendant Spark provides home electricity and gas services to
residential and business customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
   Anthony Paronich, Esq.
   Broderick Law, P.C.
   99 High Street, Suite 304
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 830-0327
   Fax: (617) 830-0327
   Email: Anthony@broderick-law.com

        - and -

   Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
   Murray Murphy Moul + Basill LLP
   1114 Dublin Road
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 488-0400
   Fax: (614) 488-0401
   Email: Murphy@mmmb.com

        - and -

   I. Matthew Miller, Esq.
   Swistak & Levine, P.C.
   30833 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 120
   Farmington Hills, MI 48334
   Tel: (248) 851-8000
   Fax: (248) 851-4620
   Email: mmiller@swistaklevine.com


SPIRIT DELIVERY: "Vargas" Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAMONE E. VARGAS, RANDY FLAMBO, and GARRY
CIVIL, individually and on Behalf of a class of similarly Situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. SPIRIT DELIVERY & DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:13-cv-12635-TSH (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Timothy S. Hillman entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of;

      "all individuals who signed Settlement Carrier Contracts
      with Spirit, in either their individual capacities or
      through personal corporate entities, and who personally
      provided Massachusetts based delivery services for Spirit
      at any time between June 28, 2010 and the present";

   2. granting in part, and denying in part Defendant's Motion
      for Summary Judgment; and

   3. denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Judge Hillman said, "Spirit also challenges whether Civil
satisfies the adequacy requirement. More specifically, Spirit
essentially argues that Civil lacks the integrity to represent the
class because he failed to provide complete personal and corporate
tax returns relating to the services performed for Spirit. I am
troubled by Civil's failure to provide un-redacted, complete tax
records given that his corporation existed prior entering a
relationship with Spirit and apparently employed other
individuals. It is likely that at trial, issues will be raised
concerning Civil Delivery's employment of other individuals and
how it treated them for tax purposes. How Civil Delivery
characterized compensation received from Spirit on his individual
and corporate tax returns may also be issues addressed during the
course of the trial. Nevertheless, I do not at this time find that
such conduct makes Civil inadequate to represent the interests of
the class. Cf. Randle v. Spectran, 129 F.R.D. 386. 392 (D. Mass.
1988)(putative class representative's failure to file tax returns,
while serious, is not so conclusive as to individual's honesty or
capacity for truthfulness to compel conclusion that he cannot
adequately represent class). As to the second prong of the
adequacy determination, i.e., whether Civil and his counsel will
vigorously prosecute the case, I am satisfied that they will do
so. I am also satisfied that Civil's counsel has demonstrated that
they are qualified, experienced and are also fully prepared to
represent the class to the best of their abilities. Accordingly, I
find that they typicality and adequacy requirements are met".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vBG3LErc


STATE FARM: MSO Recovery Sued Over Medicare Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, the
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-JPG-DGW
(S.D. Ill., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks reimbursement for medical
expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members
that should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendant
under the Medicare Act.

The Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty
under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act
to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical
treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and the putative Class
Members ("Class Members") on behalf of Defendant's insureds.

The Plaintiffs assert the rights of MAOs via assignment of all
rights, title, and interest allowing them to bring these claims.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class members provided Medicare
benefits to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled under the
Medicare Advantage program. Each Medicare beneficiary suffered
injuries related to an accident wherein Plaintiffs and the
putative class members paid for the medical items or treatment.
However, Defendant was ultimately responsible for paying those
expenses in accordance with the MSP Law.

State Farm is a group of insurance and financial services
companies in the United States. The group's main business is State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a mutual insurance firm
that also owns the other State Farm companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Hundley, Esq.
          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1620 W. Chicago Avenue, Suite 307
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: Phone: (312) 212 3343
          E-mail: dhundley@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@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
          Telephone: (310) 207 3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820 7444
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


STRATASYS LTD: Appeal From Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their consolidated
securities lawsuit remains pending, according to Stratasys Ltd.'s
March 9, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 5, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, naming the Company and certain of the Company's
officers as defendants. Similar actions were filed on February 9
and 20, 2015 in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of New York, respectively. The lawsuits allege violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and awards of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On April 15, 2015, the cases were consolidated for all purposes,
and on April 24, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel for the
putative class. On July 1, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint. On August 31, 2015, the defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim. The Court heard the motion on December 11, 2015. On June
30, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On July 29, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the
Court's judgment. On September 22, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed the
opening initial brief in support of their appeal. On October 24,
2016, defendants filed their answering brief to the appeal. On
November 18, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their reply brief in
support of the appeal. Oral arguments for appeal were scheduled
for March 9, 2017.

Stratasys Ltd. is a global provider of 3D printing and additive
manufacturing solutions for the creation of parts used in the
processes of designing and manufacturing products and for the
direct manufacture of end parts.  The Company's solutions include
products ranging from entry-level desktop 3D printers to systems
for rapid prototyping and large production systems for direct
digital manufacturing.


TONER DOCTOR: "Messerlian" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vahe Messerlian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Toner Doctor and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive and each of them, Defendants, (C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:17-
cv-02494) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placing sales,
solicitations and/or other telemarketing facsimile messages to
Plaintiff's telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant, The Toner Doctor is a company in the business of
providing printer ink cartridge to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANS UNION: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Gadomski, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Union LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00669 (E.D. Cal., March 29, 2017) seeks damages arising out of
the systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by TransUnion.

Plaintiff alleges that all actions of TransUnion was done
knowingly, intentionally and in reckless disregard for credit
reporting industry standards in an attempt to purposefully
undermine Plaintiff's ability to reorganize and repair Plaintiff's
FICO Score.  The FICO Score as become the standard measure of
consumer risk in the United States and is used in 90 percent of
lending decisions, says the complaint.

FICO Inc. is an analytics software company.  It regularly uses
mathematical algorithms to predict consumer behavior including
credit risk.

TransUnion is an American company that provides credit information
and information management services to approximately 45,000
businesses and approximately 500 million consumers worldwide in 33
countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Matthew M. Locker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ak@kazlg.com
          ml@kazlg.com

        - and -

   Clark Ovruchesky, Esq.
   Law Office of Clark Ovruchesky
   750 B. Street, Suite 3300
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 356-8960
   Fax: (619) 330-7610
   Email: co@colawcalifornia.com

        - and -

   Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart, Esq.
   2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Fax: (619) 297-1022
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


TYSON FOODS: Faces Triple R Ranch Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc.
The case is entitled as Triple R Ranch, LLC, Myles B. Weaver,
Melissa Weaver, Jonathan Buttram, Paul Brown, Matt Purlee, Jeremy
Souder, Vince Edwards, and William Beatty, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson
Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.; Tyson Poultry, Inc.;
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Koch Foods, Inc.;
Koch Meat Co., Inc., doing business as Koch Poultry Co.; Sanderson
Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Food Division); and Sanderson
Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-
cv-00112-JHP (E.D. Okla., Mar. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. District Judge James H. Payne.

Tyson Foods is an American multinational corporation based in
Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harlan Hentges, Esq.
          HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          102 E Thatcher St.
          Edmond, OK 73034
          Telephone: (405) 340 6554
          Facsimile: (405) 340 6562
          E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com


U.S. CONCRETE: Faces "Ruedelstein" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
HANS RUEDELSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. CONCRETE, INC., WILLIAM
J. SANDBROOK, WILLIAM M. BROWN, and JOSEPH C. TUSA JR., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00266-O (N.D. Tex., Mar. 28, 2017),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. produces and sells ready-mixed concrete,
aggregates, and concrete-related products and services for the
construction industry in the United States. It operates through
two segments, Ready-Mixed Concrete and Aggregate Products.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (ii) as
a result of the foregoing, U.S. Concrete's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8-
K with the SEC, announcing the resignation of the Company's Chief
Financial Officer, Joseph Tusa, and advising investors that the
Company had dismissed its previous auditor, Grant Thornton LLP
("Grant Thornton"), and engaged Ernst & Young LLP ("Ernst &
Young") as its new public accounting firm.

U.S. Concrete was set up in 1999 and now is based in Euless,
Texas. The company's main products are ready-mixed concrete and
aggregates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 643 6011
          Facsimile: (281) 254 7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

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


U.S. WATER: "Moore" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY MOORE, on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. WATER SERVICES CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00726-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla., Mar. 28,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid OT compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated water/wastewater operators
time and one-half compensation for all of their hours worked over
40 hours.

The Defendant is a water utility and water systems distribution
operator company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, Florida 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245 3383


USCB CORP: "Gilmore" Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Gilmore, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USCB Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00119-MTT (M.D. Ga., March 30, 2017) seeks damages against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice and placed its
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number by using an
automatic telephone dialing system, says the complaint.

Defendant violates the FDCPA by engaging in conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse consumers in
connection with the collection of debts, it adds.

Defendant is nationwide commercial debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
   1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
   Norcross, GA 30093
   Tel: 678-395-7795
   Fax: 866-929-2434
   Email: shireen@norcrossfirm.com

        - and -

   Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
   Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
   106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 322-3912
   Fax: (561) 961-5684
   Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gyokchyan" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tatyana Gyokchyan, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems LP, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01737 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Recovery Systems LP provides accounts receivable management
services to issuers in credit card, retail, commercial, and
deficiency loan industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      407 Rockaway Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11212
      Telephone: (646) 645-8482
      Facsimile: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail dancohenlaw@gmail.com


VECTREN UTILITY: Parties Agree to Settle Employees Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve the
matter initiated by current and former employees of Southern
Indiana Gas and Electric Company, according to Vectren Utility
Holdings, Inc.'s March 9, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims related to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.  On March 12, 2015,
certain claimants filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Vectren Combined Plan (Plan) and the Company. The Company denied
the allegations set forth in the Complaint and moved to dismiss
the case.  In April 2016, the court dismissed part of the
complaint but allowed the remaining claims to proceed.

On February 6, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle
to resolve the matter. The Company says the terms of the
settlement in principle are not expected to have a material impact
on the Plan or the Company.

Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc., an Indiana corporation, was formed
on March 31, 2000, to serve as the intermediate holding company
for Vectren Corporation's three operating public utilities:
Indiana Gas Company, Inc., Southern Indiana Gas and Electric
Company, and Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.  Indiana Gas,
SIGECO and VEDO provide energy delivery services.  SIGECO also
owns and operates electric generation assets to serve its electric
customers.


VILLA ARIANA: Orgera Seeks Unpaid Compensation Under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ORGERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VILLA ARIANA INC.; ISMAIL SALEMI.;
GOORDAT SOMDAT; and any other related corporate entities, the
Defendant, Case No. 602486/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 23, 2017),
seeks to recover compensation, including gratuities, that they
were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay the Service Charge to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in
violation of NYLL.[BN]

Villa Ariana is a sophisticated 4-bedroom Tortola rental villa
with infinity pool located within 5 mins' walk of the pristine
beach at Smuggler's Cove.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Tel: (516) 873-9550


WGL HOLDINGS: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with AltaGas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, 2031 Imperial Golf Course Blvd. Naples, FL 34110, The
Plaintiff, v. WGL HOLDINGS, INC., 101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C., 20080; MICHAEL D. BARNES, 101 Constitution
Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080; GEORGE P. CLANCY, JR., 101
Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080; JAMES W. DYKE,
JR., 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080; NANCY C.
FLOYD, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080; LINDA
GOODEN, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080; JAMES
F. LAFOND, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080;
DEBRA L. LEE, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C., 20080;
TERRY D. MCCALLISTER, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington,
D.C., 20080; DALE S. ROSENTHAL, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C., 20080; ALTAGAS LTD., 1700, 355 4 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0J1; and WRANGLER INC., 1700, 355 4 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0J1, The Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00560
(D. D.C., Mar. 28, 2017), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on January 25, 2017, pursuant to which WGL will be
acquired by AltaGas Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Wrangler
Inc.

On January 25, 2017, the Board caused WGL to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with AltaGas.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of WGL will receive $88.25
per share in cash.  On March 10, 2017, defendants filed a
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.  The Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges
herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

WGL Holdings is a public utility holding company located in the
United States that serves customers in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800


WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: "Meetz" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WAYNE MEETZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY
GROUP, LLC, and PH HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a PIZZA HUT, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1313-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, moves
the Court for an Order conditionally certifying the following
collective action:

   "all persons who have worked as a delivery driver for a Pizza
   Hut franchise operated by Wisconsin Hospitality Group, LLC and
   PH Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut at any time since
   September 30, 2013".

The Plaintiff also moves the Court for an Order:

   1. appointing Plaintiff's counsel of record as Collective
      Action Counsel;

   2. approving the form and content of the attached Notice of
      Right to Join Lawsuit;

   3. ordering Defendants provide Collective Action Counsel an
      updated list identifying all persons known to Defendant to
      meet the above definition, including their first names,
      last names, last known street address, city, state, zip
      code, phone numbers, and dates of employment, in a
      Microsoft Excel spreadsheet within 10 days of the Court's
      Order granting this Motion; and

   4. permitting the putative Collective Action members 75 days
      from the mailing of the Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit to
      opt into this lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5sfwcsnS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271 8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271 8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


XPO PORT: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Arrellano" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Cortes Arrellano, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals v. XPO Port Services Inc. and Does 1 through
50, Case No. BC655393 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 28, 2017), arises
out of the Defendant's misclassification of employees, failure to
pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unlawful
deductions, and failure to reimburse drivers for business
expenses.

XPO Port Services Inc. provides various shipping services
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.,
      Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
      GOMEZ LAW GROUP
      2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (858) 552-0000
      Facsimile: (760) 720-5217
      E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


ZVI MANOR: Faces "Fladger" FLSA Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------
Joshua Fladger, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZVI Manor and Manor Moving &
Storage, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02249 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 28, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid back wages, unpaid tips,
unpaid overtime, an additional amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as foreman, drivers and helpers at
Defendants' business.

Zvi Manor runs New York City-based Manor Moving and Storage, which
handles local and long distance moves. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
   The Rose Law Group, PLLC
   3109 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
   Astoria, NY 11102
   Tel: (718) 989-1864
   Fax: (917) 831-4595



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Denies Widow's Dependent Benefits Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned ELIZABETH FOSTER, WIDOW OF VIRGIL L.
FOSTER, Claimant Below, Petitioner v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, Commissioner Below, Respondent. AND
GLASSWARE ACQUISITION, INC., Employer Below, Respondent, No. 16-
0416 (W. Va.), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
affirmed the decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation
Board of Review, which affirmed the decision denying Elizabeth
Foster's request for dependent's benefits.

The husband of Mrs. Foster, Virgil, worked in various glass plants
for 46 years.  Mr. Foster passed away in 2013 due to asbestosis.
The Office of Judges determined that the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board did not find evidence of pleural plaque and
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to diagnose
asbestosis.  The Office of Judges also noted that the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board was unable to say Mr. Foster's occupational
exposure was a material factor to his death as they saw no
evidence of asbestos disease.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals found that the decision
of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of any
constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the
result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a
material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record.  Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision dated March 30, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/zJRckA from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Dismissal of "Johnson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard and Marcella Johnson sued defendant Moore Dry
Dock, along with a host of other defendants, alleging that Richard
Johnson developed mesothelioma from his occupational exposure to
asbestos during his service in the Navy in the 1960s.  The trial
court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding
that plaintiffs' expert witness's declaration failed to establish
a triable issue of fact as to whether Johnson was exposed to
asbestos from any of defendant's products.

Agreeing that there are no triable issues of material fact, the
Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
affirmed.

The appeals case is RICHARD JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. MOORE DRY DOCK, Defendant and Respondent, No.
A146775 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/7gxUAF from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AO Dropped as Defendant in "Lemieux"
-----------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ivan R. Lemelle of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Defendant American Optical Corporation's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the case styled ESSIE LEMIEUX, ET AL., v. CSR LTD., ET
AL., Civil Action No. 16-16508 (E.D. La.), holding that
Plaintiffs' claim that the release of future claims is relatively
null is barred by Louisiana Civil Code article 2032.  Even if it
were not barred, Plaintiffs' consent to the release was not
vitiated by error, fraud, or duress, Judge Lemelle held.  The
release is not null; it effectively released American Optical from
liability for wrongful death claims arising from the death of
Plaintiffs' husband/father, Judge Lemelle concluded.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and
Plaintiffs' claims against American Optical are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated March 29, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/pCOFX0 from Leagle.com.

Essie Lemieux, Plaintiff, represented by Meyer H. Gertler, Gertler
Law Firm.

Essie Lemieux, Plaintiff, represented by Helen Hairston Babin,
Gertler Law Firm & Louis L. Gertler, Gertler Law Firm.

Raymond J. Lemieux, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Meyer H.
Gertler, Gertler Law Firm, Helen Hairston Babin, Gertler Law Firm
& Louis L. Gertler, Gertler Law Firm.

Dehon Lemieux Callier, Plaintiff, represented by Meyer H. Gertler,
Gertler Law Firm, Helen Hairston Babin, Gertler Law Firm & Louis
L. Gertler, Gertler Law Firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Affirms $208K Verdict vs. Okonite
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, affirmed a
judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in favor of
Jean Urbach, who brought claims of negligence, strict liability,
willful and wanton misconduct, and loss of consortium against The
Okonite Company, Inc., and 28 other defendants, claiming that the
defendants' products caused her husband, Keith Urbach, to be
exposed to asbestos fibers during his career as an electrician
from 1963 to 2001.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount
of $4,165,000, including an award of $1,825,000 for post-death
loss of society and companionship.  It apportioned 5% fault to
Okonite, resulting in a total jury verdict against Okonite in the
amount of $208,250.

Following the verdict, Okonite filed a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).  It argued that Plaintiff
failed to present competent evidence to support her claims
sufficient to make a submissible case to the jury.  It argued in
the alternative that the judgment be amended in accordance with
Wisconsin's comparative fault statute and reduced in accordance
with Wisconsin's damages cap.  Okonite also filed a motion to
compel assignment of Plaintiff's asbestos bankruptcy trust claims,
arguing that under Wisconsin law, a plaintiff who obtains a
verdict on a claim involving an injury due to asbestos exposure
may not collect any amount of the judgment until she assigns to
the defendant all future rights or claims she has or may have for
a personal injury claim against an asbestos bankruptcy trust.  The
trial court denied all of Okonite's motions, and the appeal
followed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the following judgments of the trial
court: (1) denial of Okonite's motions to strike regarding the
testimony of Joseph Strenger and Thomas Kepler, Urbach's co-
workers and union brothers; (2) denial of Okonite's Motions for
Directed Verdict and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict; (3) entering a judgment that did not reduce the judgment
in accordance with the damages cap under Wisconsin law; and (4)
denial of Okonite's motion requesting an order holding Plaintiff
could not collect her judgment until she assigned to Okonite all
future rights or claims she had or may have for a personal injury
claim against an asbestos bankruptcy trust.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that both Strenger and Kepler
definitively identified Okonite as a brand of asbestos fixture
wire they used as electricians.  The Court of Appeals held that,
in this case, a jury could -- and did -- make the reasonable
inference that Urbach was exposed, in part, to asbestos contained
in an Okonite product.  This direct and circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to establish causation under Wisconsin law, the Court
of Appeals further held.

A full-text copy of the Opinion penned by Judge Lisa S. Van Amburg
dated March 28, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/T398rr from
Leagle.com.

Timothy L. Krippner, William R. Irwin, Attorneys for Appellant.

Randy L. Gori, Barry Julian, Attorneys for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane, CBS Win Summary Judgment in "Palmer"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the District
Court grant the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants
CBS Corporation and Crane Co. in the asbestos-related personal
injury action styled IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ELLEN JEANENE
PALMER, individually and as EXECUTRIX of the Estate of CLYDE LEE
DENBOW, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, BUFFALO
PUMPS DIVISION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-1064-SLR-
SRF (D. Del.).

According to the magistrate, the Plaintiff has failed to show that
a material issue of fact exists as to whether Clyde Lee Denbow was
exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or supplied by
Westinghouse.  The magistrate also held that the Plaintiff has
failed to show that a material issue of fact exists as to whether
Mr. Denbow was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured or
supplied by Crane.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated March 30,
2017, is available at https://is.gd/E7NJAh from Leagle.com.

Clyde Lee Denbow, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC.

Clyde Lee Denbow, Plaintiff, represented by John Spillane, pro hac
vice.

Ellen Jeanene Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin,
The deBruin Firm LLC.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne
Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Beazer East Inc., Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Daugherty,
Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Beazer East Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ronald L.
Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Beazer East Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ronald L.
Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Beazer East Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ronald L.
Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Beazer East Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ronald L.
Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP.

Buffalo Pumps Division, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara
Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Paquin" Can Proceed Against Crane, CBS
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAUL PAQUIN, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO.
indivudually and/or as parent, alter ego and/or succesor-in-
interest to CHAPMAN VALVE COMPANY, COCHRANE CORP., CHEMPUMP, CRANE
SUPPLY, CRANE PUMPS AND SYSTEMSN, INC. and/or JENKINS VALVES; CBS
CORPORATION f/k/a VIACOM INC., successor-by-merger with CBS
CORPORATION f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION as successor-by-merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.;
FOSTER WHEELER, LLC; and VIAD CORP. individually and/or successor-
in-interest to THE GRISCOM RUSSELL COMPANY, Defendants, Civil No.
3:15-cv-218 (AWT)(D. Conn.), Judge Alvin W. Thompson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Crane Co.'s
Motion for Summary Judgment, denied CBS Corporation's Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56 Summary Judgment Motion, and granted Defendant Foster
Wheeler LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Crane argues that "Plaintiff has produced no evidence to establish
that Paul Paquin was exposed to any allegedly[ ]defective Crane
Co. product."  Crane argues further that, in any event, the
plaintiff "cannot establish that his alleged exposure to any Crane
Co. asbestos containing product was a 'substantial factor' in
causing his injuries."

CBS also argues that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence
that he was exposed to asbestos from CBS equipment.  CBS said that
the plaintiff has not produced evidence that could establish that
exposure to its products was a substantial factor in causing the
injuries he suffered.

Judge Thompson held that the plaintiff has created genuine issues
of material fact as to both questions with respect to Crane and
CBS, pointing out that the affidavit of Charles Knapp identifies
the equipment manufactured by each of Crane and CBS, and then
explains how it was insulated with asbestos and asbestos-
containing insulation and utilized asbestos-containing gaskets.
He then avers that Crane's various types of valves and CBS's main
turbines and SSTGs were utilized on every submarine constructed or
overhauled at Electric Boat during his period of employment.  The
plaintiff, in his affidavit, declares that equipment of these two
defendants was on submarines on which he worked and that he worked
inside virtually every submarine.  He avers that the work he
performed on each submarine was in confined spaces and that as
part of his duties, he cleaned up newly applied asbestos
insulation that had fallen or broken off of pipes, cleaned up used
and discarded asbestos-containing material, and moreover,
performed "blowdowns," which caused asbestos lagging material from
the pipes and machinery to come loose and enter the air.

Foster Wheeler contends that it is entitled to summary judgment
because the plaintiff "has not offered any admissible evidence
demonstrating that he was exposed to any asbestos-containing
products manufactured, sold, supplied or in any way attributable
to Foster Wheeler."

Judge Thompson held that the evidence offered by the plaintiff
with respect to Foster Wheeler is similar in most respects to the
evidence offered with respect to Crane and CBS, but different in
one material respect.  While Knapp, in his affidavit, avers that
Crane's equipment and CBS's equipment was utilized in every
submarine, he merely avers with respect to Foster Wheeler that its
equipment was "utilized on many, if not most, submarines
constructed or overhauled at Electric Boat during [his] period of
employment."  Thus, with respect to Foster Wheeler and the
question of whether the plaintiff was exposed to its equipment,
the answer is, in substance, "maybe, but maybe not."  This is not
sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied or in any way created by Foster
Wheeler, Judge Thompson concluded.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 31, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/546CSv from Leagle.com.

James Hawkins, Special Master, Pro se.

Paul Paquin, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry &
Neusner & Matthew Bryan Gunter, Embry & Neusner.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Crystal L. Cooke, Danaher
Lagnese, PC & Jason Kirk Henderson, Danaher Lagnese, PC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Oswald,
Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler Pollock &
Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by James R.
Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan
PC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
John R. Felice, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

Viad Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lynch,
LeClairRyan & Michael R. Oleyer, LeClairRyan, PC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
John R. Felice, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
John R. Felice, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Jason Kirk Henderson,
Danaher Lagnese, PC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan
PC.

Viad Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lynch,
LeClairRyan & Michael R. Oleyer, LeClairRyan, PC.

Crane Co., Cross Claimant, represented by Jason Kirk Henderson,
Danaher Lagnese, PC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
John R. Felice, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan
PC.

Viad Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Lynch,
LeClairRyan & Michael R. Oleyer, LeClairRyan, PC.

Viad Corp., Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lynch,
LeClairRyan & Michael R. Oleyer, LeClairRyan, PC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
John R. Felice, Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, P.C..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert F. Martin,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Jason Kirk Henderson,
Danaher Lagnese, PC.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by James R.
Oswald, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Katharine S. Perry, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan PC & Kristen R. Souza, Adler Pollock & Sheehan
PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Dismissal of "Woo" Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
"As a general rule under common law and strict liability
principles, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of the
hazards of a product the manufacturer did not place in the stream
of commerce.  But there are exceptions to this general rule," the
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, said in an opinion
dated April 3, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://is.gd/82vdxn from Leagle.com.

Yuen Wing Woo worked as an engineer for the Navy and on military
transportation ships in the 1940s and 1950s.  Woo died of
mesothelioma.  The personal representative of the Estate of Yuen
Wing Woo, Yeanna Woo, and Woo's surviving spouse, Jean Oi Woo,
filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against General
Electric Company. GE designed, manufactured, and supplied steam
turbines used on Navy and military transportation ships in the
1940s and 1950s.  Reasonable inferences from the evidence show
that in the 1940s and 1950s, GE steam turbines required the use of
thermal heat insulation, gaskets, and packing to properly function
and GE knew only asbestos-containing insulation, gaskets, and
packing were available, the Court of Appeals said.  The evidence
also creates the reasonable inference that Woo was exposed not
only to asbestos-containing insulation and packing but also
gaskets originally supplied by GE, the Court of Appeals added.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment
dismissal and remanded the case for trial.

William Joel Rutzick, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810 3rd Ave Ste
500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657, Kristin Margret Houser, Schroeter
Goldmark Bender, 810 3rd Ave Ste 500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657,
Thomas James Breen, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 810 3rd Ave Ste
500, Seattle, WA, 98104-1657. Counsel for Appellant(s).

Christopher S. Marks, Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com --
Sedgwick LLP, 600 University St. Ste 2915, Seattle, WA, 98101-
4172, Kirk C. Jenkins, Esq., Sedgwick LLP, One Wacker Drive, Suite
4200, Chicago, IL, 60606, Counsel for Respondent(s)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Former Mechanic's Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Theodore Kawasaki claims that he contracted lung cancer
as a result of exposure to asbestos as a mechanic for Brewer
Environmental Industries in Honolulu, Hawaii, and Hilo, Hawaii
from 1971 to 1995.  Plaintiff relies on his co-workers as product
identification witnesses. Michael Bringman testified that Mr.
Kawasaki would take out the packing around the valves on pipes.
Mr. Bringman testified that he believed the packing and the
gaskets contained asbestos.  However, Mr. Bringman did not recall
the names of the valves or pumps at the facility.  Richard W.
Nunes, also worked with Mr. Kawasaki, and testified Mr. Kawasaki
removed insulation from valves.  He testified that he never saw
Mr. Kawasaki do any gasket removal on a valve, but he recalled Mr.
Kawasaki being around Crane valves that others were removing and
replacing gasket work.  Plaintiff also offered deposition
testimony from William McLean, a Crane corporate representative.
Mr. McLean stated that "in the late 70's [Crane] began to
substitute other materials for packing and gaskets where [they]
could.  And that was carried through the late 80's, by which time
Crane ceased using asbestos containing products in the form of
gaskets and packing."  Mr. McLean also testified that Crane
supplied replacement parts such as packing or gaskets.  Plaintiff
also refers to a 1949 and 1952 Crane Catalog as evidence that
Crane supplied asbestos containing insulation and cements to
customers.

Plaintiff argues that there is an issue of material fact, and thus
summary judgment is inappropriate, regarding whether Defendant had
a duty to warn of asbestos exposure because Defendant specified
the use of asbestos containing component parts for use on its
valves.  However, the Superior Court of Delaware held that the
Plaintiff has not presented evidence that he was exposed to
asbestos through Defendant's product.  First, Mr. Bringman did not
identify a Crane Co. product that Plaintiff worked with.
Similarly, there is no evidence in the record beyond speculation
that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a product that
Defendant manufactured.  Mr. Bringman stated that he would come
into contact with valves, but did not identify the manufacturer.
Mr. Nunes testified that he recalled seeing Mr. Kawaski around
Crane valves in which he was doing gasket work but there is no
evidence that the gaskets or insulation Mr. Kawasaki used were
manufactured by Crane, or the age of the products.  Under Hawaii
law, "a manufacturer owes a duty to warn regarding its own
product, not regarding products it did not produce, sell, or
control."  Further, Plaintiff's product identification witnesses
were unable to testify as to whether he worked on an original pump
or valve manufactured by Crane.  When viewing the record in a
light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not established,
without undue speculation, that Defendant is responsible for Mr.
Kawasaki's asbestos exposure.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION: THEODORE K. KAWASAKI,
Plaintiff, v. UNION PUMP COMPANY, et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N13C-11-314 ASB (Del. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Order penned by Judge Calvin L. Scott,
Jr., dated April 3, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/tPFhLo
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ala. Joins Dozen States in Asbestos Trust Probes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Wilson, writing for Alabama Today, reported that Alabama's
Attorney General is joining colleagues from 12 other states in
investigating asbestos bankruptcy trusts' failure to pay out
Medicaid payments as federal law requires.

Lawsuits have sent more than 60 manufacturers of asbestos or
asbestos-containing products into bankruptcy and have paid out
more than $17 billion since 2008.

The attorneys general claim that the bankruptcy trusts, which are
often overseen by plaintiff lawyers, are not giving Medicare and
Medicaid their fair due when making payments to claimants.

The law requires any outstanding payments due to Medicare or
Medicaid be taken out of any settlement received by a claimant,
and attorneys can even be held liable for making sure those bills
are paid.

The 13 attorneys general sent demand letters to bankruptcy trusts
for Armstrong World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, DII and Owens
Corning/Fibreboard back in December, and after receiving no
response elected to file a civil suit in Utah to move forward on
recovering Medicaid payments.

In the suit, the AGs claim attorneys are abusing the asbestos
trusts and that they are injuring states "by improperly draining
the trust assets, precluding future legitimate claimants from
relying on asbestos trusts, and leaving states with the high cost
associated with asbestos-related disease."

The suit also alleges that the lack of oversight in the trusts
compounds the issues, and that many claimants may be getting
undeserved payouts.

"A late-1990s audit of the Manville Trust, for instance, revealed
that 41 percent of claimants to that trust had either no disease
or a less severe condition than they had alleged in their claim
forms, with false rate claims of 63 percent for the doctors
claimants used most often," the suit says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrued $8MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., has accrued liability for asbestos
suits of $8 million at December 31, 2016, according to Con
Edison's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) has accrued
liability for asbestos suits of $7 million at December 31, 2016
($7 million at December 31, 2015).

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many,
have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for
amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims. At December 31, 2016, Con Edison and CECONY have
accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years as shown in the following table.
These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result,
the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable
possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability
accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the
amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and
former employees have claimed or are claiming workers'
compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to
asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims."

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company. The
Company operates through its subsidiaries, which include
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R), Con Edison Clean Energy
Businesses, Inc. (the Clean Energy Businesses) and Con Edison
Transmission, Inc. (Con Edison Transmission).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $25MM Liability for Main Rapture
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) has accrued
liability of $25 million for suits arising out of the 2007
Manhattan steam main rupture at December 31, 2016, according to
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the
closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately sixty suits are pending against the company seeking
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and
business interruption. The company has notified its insurers of
the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time
of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's
estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure
to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the
estimated liability accrued. At December 31, 2016, the company has
accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $25 million and
an insurance receivable of $25 million.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company. The
Company operates through its subsidiaries, which include
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R), Con Edison Clean Energy
Businesses, Inc. (the Clean Energy Businesses) and Con Edison
Transmission, Inc. (Con Edison Transmission).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro to Pay $20MM to Settle Canadian Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., will pay US$20 million to settle Canadian
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2017.

The Company announced in November that it had entered into a
definitive settlement agreement with workers' compensation boards
for each of the ten Canadian provinces (Provincial Boards) to
resolve current and future asbestos claims.  The settlement
provides for payment of US$20 million on the fourth anniversary of
the effective date of the Joint Plan of Reorganization filed in
Garlock Sealing Technologies' bankruptcy case, and can be
accelerated by the Provincial Boards, accordingly the present
value is estimated to be approximately US$17 million.  The terms
of the agreement are consistent with the company's previously
disclosed expectations.

                  About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: May 15 Confirmation Hearing on GST Ch. 11 Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., announced in December that its Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC and Coltec subsidiaries obtained the
asbestos claimant votes necessary for approval of the consensual
joint plan of reorganization to resolve current and future
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2017.

The historical business operations of Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC ("GST LLC") and The Anchor Packing Company ("Anchor") resulted
in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs
alleged personal injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers. Those subsidiaries manufactured and/or sold
industrial sealing products, predominately gaskets and packing,
that contained encapsulated asbestos fibers. Anchor is an inactive
and insolvent indirect subsidiary of EnPro. EnPro's subsidiaries'
exposure to asbestos litigation and their relationships with
insurance carriers have been managed through another subsidiary,
Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd. ("Garrison"). GST LLC,
Anchor and Garrison are collectively referred to as "GST."

On June 5, 2010 (the "Petition Date"), GST filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina in Charlotte (the "Bankruptcy Court").
The filings were the initial step in an asbestos claims resolution
process, which is ongoing.

The financial results of GST and its subsidiaries are included in
our consolidated results through June 4, 2010, the day prior to
the Petition Date. However, U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles require an entity that files for protection under the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, whether solvent or insolvent, whose
financial statements were previously consolidated with those of
its parent, as GST's and its subsidiaries' were with EnPro's,
generally must be prospectively deconsolidated from the parent and
the investment accounted for using the cost method. Accordingly,
the financial results of GST and its subsidiaries are not included
in EnPro's consolidated results after June 4, 2010.

On March 17, 2016, EnPro announced that it had reached a
comprehensive settlement to resolve current and future asbestos
claims. The settlement was reached with the court-appointed
committee representing current asbestos claimants (the "GST
Committee") and the court-appointed legal representative of future
asbestos claimants (the "GST FCR") in GST's Chapter 11 case
pending before the Bankruptcy Court. Representatives for current
and future asbestos claimants (the "Coltec Representatives")
against Coltec Industries Inc ("Coltec") (another subsidiary of
EnPro and, at that time, GST's direct parent) also joined in the
settlement.

Under the settlement, the GST Committee, the GST FCR and the
Coltec Representatives agreed to join GST and Coltec in proposing
a joint plan of reorganization that incorporates the settlement
and to ask asbestos claimants and the court to approve the plan.
The joint plan of reorganization was filed with the Bankruptcy
Court on May 20, 2016 and technical amendments to the joint plan
of reorganization were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on June 21,
2016, July 29, 2016 and December 2, 2016. The joint plan of
reorganization supersedes all prior plans of reorganization filed
by GST with the Bankruptcy Court.

The joint plan of reorganization was subject to approval by a vote
in favor of the plan by asbestos claimants. The solicitation
process to obtain approval of the asbestos claimants was completed
successfully on December 9, 2016, with 95.85% in number and 95.80%
in amount of claims held by asbestos claimants casting valid
ballots voting in favor of approval of the joint plan of
reorganization. The joint plan of reorganization remains subject
to approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina (the "District Court")
and, if so approved and consummated, would permanently resolve all
current and future asbestos claims against GST and Coltec/OldCo,
and would protect all of EnPro and its subsidiaries from those
claims, under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The
hearing on objections to the joint plan of reorganization and to
determine whether the Bankruptcy Court will confirm the joint plan
of reorganization is scheduled to commence on May 15, 2017.

As contemplated by the comprehensive settlement, following the
approval of the joint plan of reorganization by asbestos
claimants, Coltec engaged in a series of corporate restructuring
transactions in which all of its significant operating assets and
subsidiaries, which included each of EnPro's major business units,
were distributed to a new direct EnPro subsidiary ("EnPro
Holdings"). OldCo, as the successor by merger to Coltec in those
transactions, retained responsibility for all asbestos claims and
rights to certain insurance assets. The restructuring was
completed on December 31, 2016 and, as contemplated by the joint
plan of reorganization and the comprehensive settlement, OldCo
filed a pre-packaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the
Bankruptcy Court on January 30, 2017.

The joint plan of reorganization provides for the establishment of
a trust (the "Trust") to be fully funded within a year of
consummation of the joint plan of reorganization. The Trust is to
be funded with aggregate cash contributions by GST LLC and
Garrison of $370 million made at the effective date of the joint
plan of reorganization and by the contribution made by OldCo at
the effective date of the joint plan of reorganization of $30
million in cash and an option, exercisable one-year after the
effective date of the joint plan of reorganization, permitting the
Trust to purchase for $1 shares of EnPro common stock having a
value of $20 million and the obligation of OldCo to make a
deferred contribution of $60 million in cash no later than one
year after the effective date of the joint plan of reorganization.
This deferred contribution is to be guaranteed by EnPro and
secured by a pledge of 50.1% of the outstanding voting equity
interests of GST LLC and Garrison. Under the joint plan of
reorganization, the Trust will assume responsibility for all
present and future asbestos claims arising from the conduct,
operations or products of GST or Coltec/OldCo. Under the joint
plan of reorganization, all non-asbestos creditors will be paid in
full and EnPro will retain ownership of OldCo, GST LLC and
Garrison.

The consensual settlement includes as a condition to EnPro's
obligations to proceed with the settlement that EnPro, Coltec, GST
LLC and Garlock of Canada Ltd. (an indirect subsidiary of GST LLC)
enter into a written agreement, to be consummated concurrently
with the effective date of consummation of the joint plan of
reorganization, with the Canadian provincial workers' compensation
boards (the "Provincial Boards") resolving remedies the Provincial
Boards may possess against Garlock of Canada Ltd, GST, Coltec or
any of their affiliates, including releases and covenants not to
sue, for any present or future asbestos-related claim, and that
the agreement is either approved by the Bankruptcy Court following
notice to interested parties or the Bankruptcy Court concludes
that its approval is not required. On November 11, 2016, EnPro and
such subsidiaries entered into such an agreement (the "Canadian
Settlement") with the Provincial Boards to resolve current and
future claims against EnPro, GST, Garrison, Coltec, and Garlock of
Canada Ltd. for recovery of a portion of amounts the Provincial
Boards have paid and will pay in the future under asbestos-injury
recovery statutes in Canada for claims relating to asbestos-
containing products. The Canadian Settlement provides for an
aggregate cash settlement payment to the Provincial Boards of
$(U.S.) 20 million, payable on the fourth anniversary of the
effective date of the joint plan of reorganization. Under the
Canadian Settlement, after the effective date of the joint plan of
reorganization, the Provincial Boards will have the option of
accelerating the payment, in which case the amount payable would
be discounted from the fourth anniversary of the effective date of
the joint plan of reorganization to the payment date at a discount
rate of 4.5% per annum. On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order approving the Canadian Settlement.

If the joint plan of reorganization is approved by the Bankruptcy
Court and the District Court and is consummated, GST will be
reconsolidated with EnPro's results for financial reporting
purposes. EnPro cannot assure you that necessary approvals of the
joint plan of reorganization will be obtained and that the joint
plan of reorganization will be consummated. Confirmation and
consummation of the joint plan of reorganization are subject to a
number of risks and uncertainties, certain of which are summarized
above in the paragraph following the caption, "Forward-Looking
Statements."

EnPro is providing the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated
financial information which assumes, with respect to GST, the
confirmation and consummation of the joint plan of reorganization
for illustrative purposes only, in light of specific requests for
such pro forma information by investors. The unaudited pro forma
condensed consolidated financial information presented below has
been prepared to illustrate the effects of the reconsolidation of
GST and its subsidiaries with EnPro assuming the confirmation and
consummation of the joint plan of reorganization and the
consummation of the Canadian Settlement and is based upon the
historical balance sheet of EnPro as of December 31, 2016, the
estimated fair value of assets and liabilities of GST as of
December 31, 2016 and the historical results of GST operations
after consideration of the adjustments to the fair value of assets
and liabilities. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 gives effect to the
reconsolidation as if it occurred on December 31, 2016. The
unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statements of
operations for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 give
effect to the reconsolidation as if it had occurred on January 1,
2015.

Under generally accepted accounting principles, the
reconsolidation of GST requires that the tangible and intangible
assets and liabilities of GST be reflected at their estimated fair
values. The preliminary fair value amounts used in the unaudited
pro forma condensed consolidated financial information reflects
management's best estimates of fair value. Upon completion of
detailed valuation studies and the final determination of fair
value, EnPro may make additional adjustments to the fair value
allocation, which may differ significantly from the valuations set
forth in the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial
information.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated statements of
operations are based on estimates and assumptions, which have been
made solely for the purposes of developing such pro forma
information. The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated
statements of operations also include certain adjustments such as
increased depreciation and amortization expense on tangible and
intangible assets, increased interest expense on the debt incurred
to complete the reconsolidation as well as the tax impacts related
to these adjustments. The pro forma adjustments are based upon
available information and certain assumptions that EnPro believes
are reasonable.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial
information has been presented for information purposes only and
is not necessarily indicative of what the consolidated company's
financial position or results of operations actually would have
been had the reconsolidation been completed as of the dates
indicated, nor is it necessarily indicative of the future
operating results or financial position of the consolidated
company. Therefore, the actual amounts recorded at the date the
reconsolidation occurs may differ from the information presented.

                  About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Coltec Seeks Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2016, Coltec, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries,
Inc., completed its corporate restructuring as contemplated by the
previously filed joint plan of reorganization, and on January 30,
2017, Coltec's corporate successor filed a prepackaged Chapter 11
petition, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2017.

The Company states, "As contemplated by the comprehensive
settlement, following the approval of the joint plan of
reorganization by asbestos claimants, Coltec engaged in a series
of corporate restructuring transactions in which all of its
significant operating assets and subsidiaries, which included each
of EnPro's major business units, were distributed to a new direct
EnPro subsidiary ("EnPro Holdings"). OldCo, as the successor by
merger to Coltec in those transactions, retained responsibility
for all asbestos claims and rights to certain insurance assets.
The restructuring was completed on December 31, 2016 and, as
contemplated by the joint plan of reorganization and the
comprehensive settlement, OldCo filed a pre-packaged Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court on January 30, 2017.

"The joint plan of reorganization provides for the establishment
of a trust (the "Trust") to be fully funded within a year of
consummation of the joint plan of reorganization. The Trust is to
be funded with aggregate cash contributions by GST LLC and
Garrison of $370 million made at the effective date of the joint
plan of reorganization and by the contribution made by OldCo at
the effective date of the joint plan of reorganization of $30
million in cash and an option, exercisable one-year after the
effective date of the joint plan of reorganization, permitting the
Trust to purchase for $1 shares of EnPro common stock having a
value of $20 million and the obligation of OldCo to make a
deferred contribution of $60 million in cash no later than one
year after the effective date of the joint plan of reorganization.
This deferred contribution is to be guaranteed by EnPro and
secured by a pledge of 50.1% of the outstanding voting equity
interests of GST LLC and Garrison. Under the joint plan of
reorganization, the Trust will assume responsibility for all
present and future asbestos claims arising from the conduct,
operations or products of GST or Coltec/OldCo. Under the joint
plan of reorganization, all non-asbestos creditors will be paid in
full and EnPro will retain ownership of OldCo, GST LLC and
Garrison."

                  About EnPro Industries

EnPro Industries, Inc. is a leader in sealing products, metal
polymer and filament wound bearings, components and service for
reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by industries
worldwide. For more information about EnPro, visit the company's
website at http://www.enproindustries.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to face cases filed
by former and current employees and various third parties that
allege exposure to asbestos at work, 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, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease,
asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos
related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former
executive officers are also named as defendants. In some
instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the
Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the
years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 was immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) designs, builds, and
maintains nuclear and non-nuclear ships for the United States Navy
and Coast Guard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corp. is a defendant in a substantial number of lawsuits
that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or
distributed by its heritage companies in the past, 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: "While the overall number of asbestos-related
claims has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

Flowserve Corporation designs, manufactures, distributes, and
services industrial flow management equipment worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loews Unit Has $200MM Unfavorable Development
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation's subsidiary, CNA Financial Corporation,
recognized a net unfavorable prior year development of $200
million, 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.

Based upon CNA's 2016 A&EP reserve review, net unfavorable prior
year development of $200 million was recognized before
consideration of cessions to loss portfolio transfer ("LPT").  On
August 31, 2010, CNA completed a retroactive reinsurance
transaction under which substantially all of its legacy A&EP
liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company, a subsidiary
of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an aggregate limit of $4.0
billion.



LPT.  The unfavorable development was driven by an increase in
anticipated future expenses associated with determination of
coverage, higher anticipated payouts associated with a limited
number of historical accounts having significant asbestos
exposures and higher than expected severity on pollution claims.
An A&EP reserve review was not completed in 2014 because
additional information and analysis on inuring third-party
reinsurance recoveries were needed to finalize the review. The
review was finalized in the second quarter of 2015 and management
has adopted the first quarter of the year as the timing for all
future annual A&EP claims actuarial reviews, subject to the timing
of the corresponding review performed by NICO. Unfavorable
development of $150 million was recorded in 2015 to reflect a
decrease in anticipated future reinsurance recoveries related to
asbestos claims and higher than expected severity on pollution
claims. While this unfavorable development was ceded to NICO in
2016 and 2015 under the LPT, CNA's reported earnings in both
periods were negatively affected due to the application of
retroactive reinsurance accounting.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/djS9UR

Loews Corporation is one of the largest diversified holding
companies in the United States, with five operating subsidiaries:
CNA Financial Corporation, one of the largest U.S. commercial
property-casualty insurers; Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., one
of the world's largest offshore drilling companies; HighMount
Exploration & Production LLC, a domestic natural gas exploration
and production company; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, an
operator of interstate natural gas pipeline systems; and Loews
Hotels, one of the country's top luxury lodging companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Equity Interest in PC Canceled at June 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has satisfied its funding obligations to the
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation asbestos trust, according to the
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, PPG's equity
interest in PC was canceled. PPG satisfied its funding obligations
to the Trust on June 9, 2016, when it conveyed to the Trust the
stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and 2,777,778 shares
of PPG's common stock and made a cash payment to the Trust in the
amount of $764 million.

Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant in
numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i) exposure to
asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured, sold or
distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which they
are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos
allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or
(iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation ("PC") for which the Company was alleged to be
liable under a variety of legal theories (the Company and Corning
Incorporated were each 50% shareholders in PC).

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation asbestos bankruptcy

In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently
and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims. At the time of the bankruptcy
filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in
approximately 114,000 open claims. The Bankruptcy Court
subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining
the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the
effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization. During
the pendency of this preliminary injunction staying asbestos
litigation against PPG, PPG and certain of its historical
liability insurers negotiated a settlement with representatives of
present and future asbestos claimants. That settlement was
incorporated into a PC plan of reorganization that was confirmed
by the Bankruptcy Court on May 24, 2013 and ultimately became
effective on April 27, 2016. With the effectiveness of the plan,
the preliminary injunction staying the prosecution of asbestos
litigation against PPG expired by its own terms on May 27, 2016.
In accordance with the settlement, the Bankruptcy Court issued a
permanent channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code that prohibits present and future claimants from
asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out
of exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC or asbestos on or
emanating from any PC premises. The channeling injunction, by its
terms, also prohibits codefendants in cases that are subject to
the channeling injunction from asserting claims against PPG for
contribution, indemnification or other recovery. The channeling
injunction also precludes the prosecution of claims against PPG
arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or seeking to
impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the conduct of,
claims against, or demands on PC by reason of PPG's: (i) ownership
of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in the management
of PC, or service as an officer, director or employee of PC or a
related party; (iii) provision of insurance to PC or a related
party; or (iv) involvement in a financial transaction affecting
the financial condition of PC or a related party. The foregoing PC
related claims are referred to as "PC Relationship Claims."
The channeling injunction channels the Company's liability for PC
Relationship Claims to a trust funded in part by PPG and its
participating insurers for the benefit of current and future PC
asbestos claimants (the "Trust"). The Trust is the sole recourse
for holders of PC Relationship Claims. PPG and its affiliates have
no further liability or responsibility for, and will be
permanently protected from, pending and future PC Relationship
Claims. The channeling injunction does not extend to present and
future claims against PPG that arise out of alleged exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products historically
manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries
or for which they are alleged to be liable that are not PC
Relationship Claims, and does not extend to claims against PPG
alleging personal injury allegedly caused by asbestos on premises
presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by PPG. These
claims are referred to as non-PC Relationship Claims.

In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, PPG's equity
interest in PC was canceled. PPG satisfied its funding obligations
to the Trust on June 9, 2016, when it conveyed to the Trust the
stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and 2,777,778 shares
of PPG's common stock and made a cash payment to the Trust in the
amount of $764 million. PPG's historical insurance carriers
participating in the PC plan of reorganization are required to
make cash payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion,
subject to a right of prepayment at a 5.5% discount rate.

On October 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order entering
a final decree and closing the Chapter 11 case. That order
provided that the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to
enforce any order issued in the case and any agreements approved
by the court, enforce the terms and conditions or the modified
third amended Plan, and consider any requests to reopen the case.

The following table outlines the impact on PPG's financial
statements for the three years ended December 31, 2016 including
the change in fair value of the PPG stock contributed to the
Trust, the equity forward instrument and the increase in the net
present value of the payments made to the trust:
https://is.gd/ct1VOT

The fair value of the equity forward instrument was included as an
"Other current asset" as of December 31, 2015 in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet. Payments under the fixed payment
schedule required annual payments that were due each June. The
current portion of the asbestos settlement liability included in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
2015, consisted of all such payments required through June 2016,
the fair value of PPG's common stock and the value of PPG's
investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe. The net present value of
the remaining payments was included in the long-term asbestos
settlement liability in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2015.

PPG Industries, Inc. supplies products for the manufacturing,
construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Considers Non-PC-Linked Claims Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., currently considers closed or inactive
certain cases that were reportable within the inventory of 114,000
asbestos-related claims at the time Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
filed for bankruptcy, 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.

At the time PC filed for bankruptcy, PPG had been named as one of
many defendants in one or more of the categories of asbestos-
related claims. Over the course of the 16 years during which the
PC bankruptcy proceedings, and corresponding preliminary
injunction staying the prosecution of asbestos-related claims
against PPG, were pending, certain plaintiffs alleging premises
claims filed motions seeking to lift the stay with respect to more
than 1,000 individually-identified premises. The Bankruptcy Court
granted motions to lift the stay in respect to certain of these
premises claims and directed PPG to engage in a process to address
any additional premises claims that were the subject of pending or
anticipated lift-stay motions. As a result of the overall process
as directed by the Bankruptcy Court involving more than 1,000
premises claims between 2006 and May 27, 2016, hundreds of these
claims were withdrawn or dismissed without payment and
approximately 650 premises claims were dismissed upon agreements
by PPG and its insurers to resolve such claims in exchange for
monetary payments.

With respect to the remaining claims and still reportable within
the inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims at the time PC
filed for bankruptcy, the Company considers such claims to fall
within one or more of the following categories: (1) claims that
have been closed or dismissed as a result of processes undertaken
during the bankruptcy; (2) claims that may have been previously
filed on the dockets of state and federal courts in various
jurisdictions, but are inactive as to the Company; and (3) claims
that are subject, in whole or in part, to the channeling
injunction and thus will be resolved, in whole or in part, in
accordance with the Trust procedures established under the PC
bankruptcy reorganization plan. As a result of the foregoing, the
Company does not consider these three categories of claims to be
open or active litigation against it, although the Company cannot
now determine whether, or the extent to which, any of these claims
may in the future be reinstituted, reinstated, or revived such
that they may become open and active asbestos-related claims
against it.

PPG Industries, Inc. supplies products for the manufacturing,
construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Faces 750 Post-PC Ch. 11 Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., is aware of approximately 750 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against it and certain of
its subsidiaries, 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.

These claims consist primarily of non-PC (Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation) Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary
of PPG. The Company is defending the remaining open and active
claims vigorously.

Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG. All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business. The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller. The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims will cease with respect to
claims filed after April 1, 2018.

PPG Industries, Inc. supplies products for the manufacturing,
construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Has $180MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has established reserves totaling
approximately $180 million for asbestos-related claims that would
not be channeled to the Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Trust,
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 says that based on presently available information, it
believes the reserves will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's
current and potential future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves
include a $162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection
with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization.  These
reserves, which are included within "Other liabilities" on the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best
estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on
which to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the
fact that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos
claims against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through
May 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with its
remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its
estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then
available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any
adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required.

The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process,
including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which
trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including
potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific
information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is
allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases
resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in
applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these
factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related
liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos
financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG
retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance
coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not
participate in the PC plan of reorganization. While the ultimate
outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with
certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from
its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse
effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.

PPG Industries, Inc. supplies products for the manufacturing,
construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1,326MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Companies, Inc., has $1,326 million net asbestos
reserves for the year ended December 31, 2016, 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 believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
reduction in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company had
been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied.

On July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct
Action Settlements had been satisfied. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
$579 million to the plaintiffs, comprised of the $502 million
settlement amounts, plus pre- and post-judgment interest of $77
million, and the Company made that payment in 2015.

It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

On January 29, 2009, the Company and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG),
along with approximately 30 other insurers of PPG, agreed in
principle to settle asbestos-related coverage litigation under
insurance policies issued to PPG. The Agreement was incorporated
into the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization ("Amended
Plan") proposed as part of the Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC,
which is 50% owned by PPG) bankruptcy proceeding. Pursuant to the
Amended Plan, which was filed on January 30, 2009, PCC, along with
enumerated other companies (including PPG as well as the Company
as a participating insurer), receive protections afforded by
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code from certain asbestos-
related bodily injury claims. Under the Agreement, the Company had
the option to make a series of payments over 20 years totaling
approximately $620 million to the trust created under the Amended
Plan, or it could elect to make a discounted payment.

On January 7, 2016, the remaining objections to the Amended Plan
were dismissed. On April 27, 2016, the Amended Plan became
effective and all the remaining conditions to the Agreement were
satisfied. The Company fully satisfied its obligation under the
Agreement by making a discounted payment in the second quarter of
2016. The Company's payment totaled $524 million, of which $518
million was related to asbestos reserves. The Company's
obligations under the Agreement were included in its claims and
claim adjustment expense reserves at December 31, 2015.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

In the third quarter of 2016, the Company completed its annual in-
depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:

   -- continued high level of litigation activity in certain
jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious asbestos-
related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims;

   -- while overall payment patterns have been generally stable,
there has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders
due to the continued high level of litigation activity; and

   -- continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
activity.

In the Home Office and Field Office category, which accounts for
the vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, the number of policyholders tendering asbestos claims for
the first time, the number of policyholders with open asbestos
claims and both gross and net asbestos-related payments declined
slightly when compared to 2015. Payments on behalf of
policyholders in this category continue to be influenced by the
high level of litigation activity in a limited number of
jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious asbestos-related
injury, primarily mesothelioma, continue to target defendants who
were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2016, 2015 and
2014 resulted in $225 million, $224 million and $250 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves.
In each year, the reserve increases were primarily driven by
increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the
Home Office category due to a higher than previously anticipated
level of litigation activity surrounding mesothelioma claims. This
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than
previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment discussed above. Over the past decade, the property
and casualty insurance industry, including the Company, has
experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with
regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over
that period there has been a reduction in the volatility
associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the
overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by
exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage
disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were
asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate
limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily
driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with
mesothelioma. The Company's overall view of the current underlying
asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods
and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to
future exposure to asbestos claims.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in 2016, 2015 and 2014
were $708 million, $770 million and $242 million, respectively.
Net payments in 2016 included the payment of the $518 million
settlement amounts related to PPG as described above. Net payments
in 2015 included the payment of the $502 million settlement
amounts related to the Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action
Litigation... Approximately 69%, 69% and 8% of total net paid
losses in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, related to
policyholders with whom the Company had entered into settlement
agreements limiting the Company's liability.

The company has $1,326 million and $1,810 million net asbestos
reserves at and for the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015,
respectively.

To see how the Company categorizes its asbestos reserves, see:
https://is.gd/9lVQrF

The Policyholders with Settlement Agreements category includes
structured settlements, coverage in place arrangements and, with
respect to TPC, Wellington accounts. Reserves are based on the
expected payout for each policyholder under the applicable
agreement. Structured settlements are arrangements under which
policyholders and/or plaintiffs agree to fixed financial amounts
to be paid at scheduled times. Coverage in place arrangements
represent agreements with policyholders on specified amounts of
coverage to be provided. Payment obligations may be subject to
annual maximums and are only made when valid claims are presented.
Wellington accounts refer to the 35 defendants that are parties to
a 1985 agreement settling certain disputes concerning insurance
coverage for their asbestos claims. Many of the aspects of the
Wellington agreement are similar to those of coverage in place
arrangements in which the parties have agreed on specific amounts
of coverage and the terms under which the coverage can be
accessed.  ...[I]n 2016 the Company paid a $518 million settlement
related to asbestos-related coverage litigation under insurance
policies issued to PPG. That amount had been included in the
Policyholders with Settlement Agreements category in the foregoing
table at December 31, 2015. As also discussed above, in 2015 the
Company paid a $502 million settlement related to the asbestos
direct action litigation.

The Home Office and Field Office category relates to all other
policyholders and also includes IBNR reserves and reserves for the
costs of defending asbestos-related coverage litigation. IBNR
reserves in the Home Office and Field Office category include
amounts for new claims and adverse development on existing Home
Office and Field Office policyholders, as well as reserves for
claims from policyholders reporting asbestos claims for the first
time and for policyholders for which there is, or may be,
litigation. Policyholders are identified for the annual home
office review based upon, among other factors: a combination of
past payments and current case reserves in excess of a specified
threshold (currently $100,000), perceived level of exposure,
number of reported claims, products/completed operations and
potential "non-product" exposures, size of policyholder and
geographic distribution of products or services sold by the
policyholder. The Assumed Reinsurance and Other category primarily
consists of reinsurance of excess coverage, including various pool
participations.

The following table displays activity for asbestos losses and loss
expenses and reserves: https://is.gd/9lVQrF

The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a holding company. The Company's
segments include business and international insurance; bond and
specialty insurance, and personal insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Asbestos Paid Loss Was $708MM in 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos paid loss and loss
expenses in 2016 was $708 million, 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, "It is difficult to estimate the reserves for
asbestos and environmental-related claims due to the vagaries of
court coverage decisions, plaintiffs' expanded theories of
liability, the risks inherent in complex litigation and other
uncertainties.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

"In the third quarter of 2016, the Company completed its annual
in-depth asbestos claim review, including a review of active
policyholders and litigation cases for potential product and "non-
product" liability, and noted the continuation of the following
trends:

   -- continued high level of litigation activity in certain
jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious asbestos-
related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims;

   -- while overall payment patterns have been generally stable,
there has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders
due to the continued high level of litigation activity; and

   -- continued moderate level of asbestos-related bankruptcy
activity.

"In the Home Office and Field Office category, which accounts for
the vast majority of policyholders with active asbestos-related
claims, the number of policyholders tendering asbestos claims for
the first time, the number of policyholders with open asbestos
claims and both gross and net asbestos-related payments declined
slightly when compared to 2015. Payments on behalf of
policyholders in this category continue to be influenced by the
high level of litigation activity in a limited number of
jurisdictions where individuals alleging serious asbestos-related
injury, primarily mesothelioma, continue to target defendants who
were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.

"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

"The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2016, 2015 and
2014 resulted in $225 million, $224 million and $250 million
increases, respectively, in the Company's net asbestos reserves.
In each year, the reserve increases were primarily driven by
increases in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and
defense costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the
Home Office category due to a higher than previously anticipated
level of litigation activity surrounding mesothelioma claims. This
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than
previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment discussed above. Over the past decade, the property
and casualty insurance industry, including the Company, has
experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with
regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over
that period there has been a reduction in the volatility
associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the
overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by
exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage
disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were
asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate
limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily
driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with
mesothelioma. The Company's overall view of the current underlying
asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods
and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to
future exposure to asbestos claims.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in 2016, 2015 and 2014
were $708 million, $770 million and $242 million, respectively.
Net payments in 2016 included the payment of the $518 million
settlement amounts related to PPG Industries, Inc. Net payments in
2015 included the payment of the $502 million settlement amounts
related to the Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action Litigation...
Approximately 69%, 69% and 8% of total net paid losses in 2016,
2015 and 2014, respectively, related to policyholders with whom
the Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting the
Company's liability."

The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a holding company. The Company's
segments include business and international insurance; bond and
specialty insurance, and personal insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Monitors Asbestos Removal
--------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Swanson writing for Beverly Patch reported that the
Chicago Department of Public Health is monitoring asbestos removal
at a former auto parts store after the company was found to have
had past citations and fines in the past.

Ald. Matt O'Shea's staff said they received a call from a resident
who was concerned that asbestos removal was being done without a
permit at a building located at 9255 S. Western Ave.

The Cicero-based ASAP Environmental is currently performing
asbestos removal from what had been an auto parts store that had
recently relocated.  The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration cited ASAP in December 2014 with two serious
citations for "failure to ensure a competent person conducted
exposure monitoring and supervised asbestos removal."

According to O'Shea's office, a city permit was not needed to do
the work, however, the company did file a plan as required with
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

An inspection conducted found no violations or problems. O'Shea's
office further added there was no exposure or danger to residents
caused by the removal.

"Moving forward, I will continue to work with CDPH to ensure all
appropriate safety precautions are in place," O'Shea said in an
email to constituents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Asbestos Disposal Increases in Cornwall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Reines writing for Cornwall Live reported that fly-tipping is
the scourge of the Cornish countryside.  Lazy law-breakers,
whether private or rogue traders, who don't care about the cost to
the environment or the taxpayer blight our fields, beauty spots
and laybys.

And now it has emerged that Cornwall has experienced a huge
increase in the number of people illegally dumping potentially
deadly asbestos.

According to the latest official figures, the dangerous material
had to be cleared up by Cornwall Council a total of 43 times in
2015/16.  This was nearly three times as many cases of people fly-
tipping asbestos than the year before, when the council recorded
15 instances, and up from just 10 in 2013/14.

Asbestos has been blamed for a number of lung diseases, including
several forms of cancer.  However, it is only dangerous to the
public if the material is broken up and the fibres are inhaled.
While its use in the building trade has been banned since 2000, it
can still be found in many buildings, and if it poses a hazard, it
must be disposed of properly.

Asbestos waste should only be handled by a licensed disposal site.

However, some 'cowboy' asbestos removal companies will charge
people to remove the material only to illegally dump it to save on
the cost of disposing of it correctly.

Across the country, there were 3,011 such cases of asbestos being
dumped, mainly on highways and footpaths and in back alleyways.

The figures come a fortnight after it was revealed that fly-
tippers from Devon were crossing the border to dump rubbish in
Cornwall.  It was hoped they could be traced through a letter left
on the scene which had a name printed on it and was handed to
police officers.

In October 2015 Cornwall Live reported that the number of fly-
tipping incidents had risen sharply just 12 months after new
charges for dumping waste at the county's recycling centres were
brought in.  Figures showed that from September 2014 to August
2015 there were 1,400 more fly-tipping incidents than in the
previous 12 months.  Of those incidents, 872 were for items for
which Cornwall Council had started charging, including asbestos,
tyres and construction waste.  The new had charges resulted in
items such as soil, rubble, bricks and tiles costing GBP1.75 per
sack to dispose of, while tyres were charged at GBP3.20 each.
Asbestos costs more than GBP10 per sheet to be dumped.

Details released under the Freedom Of Information Act showed that
Cornwall Council had spent GBP743,000 cleaning up fly-tipping in
Cornwall over the previous three years, dealing with 12,000 cases.

But there may be light at the end of the tunnel -- literally -- as
fly-tipping incidents were reported to increase dramatically when
the clocks went back in November, and the clocks are now going
forward next weekend.  Councillor Mark Kaczmarek said at the time
there had been eight incidents within one week in his area around
St Day.

But Cornwall Council has been employing innovative means to fight
the scourge.  In September of last year, fly-tipper Jonathan
Orchard was told by magistrates to pay GBP2,500 in costs and fines
after being caught -- as seen in the image below -- on CCTV
cameras hidden by the council leaving furniture at a rubbish
dumping 'hot spot' near Bodmin.

Cornwall Council said asbestos made up only 1% of its fly-tipping
incidents.

It added:  "We receive around 4,000 reports of fly-tipping on
public and private land a year.  The council continues to work
hard to tackle issues of fly-tipping which is not only unsightly
but costs the authority thousands of pounds each year to clear up
the mess.  We will continue to respond, investigate and, where
evidence is found, we will take the appropriate enforcement
action.

"We continue to do everything possible to challenge fly-tipping,
including monitoring and camera surveillance at local fly-tipping
'hot spots'; when taken to court this irresponsible action can
prove extremely costly to offenders.  Since 2015 Cornwall Council
has successfully prosecuted nine people for fly-tipping offenses.
The fines and costs recovered for these offenses is over
GBP13,689.  We will continue to carry out both proactive and
reactive work to tackle fly-tippers in Cornwall.

"It is also important that all people paying contractors to
dispose of waste on their behalf undertake the necessary checks to
ensure that the contractor has a legal permit to transport the
waste and that the contractor provides the customer with waste
transfer notes to ensure that their legal duties are complete and
the waste has been disposed of responsibly.  Two of the offenders
previously mentioned were prosecuted for not ensuring that their
waste was not properly disposed of by licensed carry.  This can
result substantial fines and costs being imposed by the courts."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman With Asbestosis Appeals for Help
-------------------------------------------------------
Northamptonshire Telegraph reported that an appeal has been made
on behalf of a Wellingborough woman who has developed asbestosis.

Myrtle Verstraeten, now 77, used to work at the Regent Belt
Company Ltd in Old Road, Walgrave.

The company, which later moved to Weedon Road Industrial Estate,
Northampton, made luxury leather goods.  Mrs Verstraeten (known as
Myrtle Filer when she started her employment) worked as a sprayer
from about 1987 to 1992.  Her task was to spray the leather goods
with the glue in spray bays without any form of respiratory
protection. In addition to the possibility of being exposed to
asbestos through spraying Mrs. Verstraeten may also have been
further exposed when she cleaned extractor fans situated in the
eaves of the building, next to where her booth was located.  These
fans were removed by a work colleague and she would then use a
scraper to hack away the congealed dust that had collected on the
blades.  She says this generated further dust which she breathed
in. Mrs Verstraeten has gone on to develop pleural plaques and
asbestosis.  Both debilitating industrial diseases are caused by
inhaling asbestos fibres which scar and irreparably damage the
lung tissue.  The symptoms of asbestosis can take some time to
become apparent and anyone who is exposed to asbestos may also be
at risk of developing some serious medical conditions, including
the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.  About five years after
she started the spraying job, Mrs. Verstraeten recalls seeing a
safety data product sheet giving what she believes was an
indication that the glue may have contained asbestos or was
harmful.  It is understood that the glue used was made by Caswell
Adhesives, also located in Northamptonshire.  However, that
company no longer has the relevant safety data sheets for that
particular product which it says were all lost in a fire.

Garret Spring, a legal expert on asbestos claims with law firm
Access Legal, said: "We hope that anyone who may remember working
with Myrtle or worked at the Regent Belt Company Ltd or has any
knowledge about the composition and safety of the glue used or
even has a copy of the safety data sheet gets in touch as they may
have the answers that she desperately needs.

"Any information from her former colleagues will help us achieve
some sort of justice for Mrs. Verstraeten that recognises her
wholly undeserved suffering."  Anyone who thinks they might have
relevant information about the company or the glue used, or indeed
may face similar health issues, can call Mr Spring on 03700 86
6394 or email.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Ongoing in NZ Primary School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newstalk ZB reported that parents with children at an Auckland
primary school where asbestos is being removed, are concerned
about the risk their kids are being exposed to.

Asbestos was found in the soil at Hobsonville Primary School last
October, and they've been working to remove it since February.

Removal is currently taking place now, and children are expected
to stay in school while it happens.

Parent Adam Brooker said his kids have been out of school for the
past two days because it's too risky.

"Any risk with asbestos is too high because in five to 20 years is
when we'll find out if the dice has been nice to us.

"I've lost sleep over this. Been worried anxiously.  Haven't been
able to go to work for the last couple of days especially after my
children decided they would pull a sickie so they could have their
feelings heard too."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Detected in Des Moines Apartments
-----------------------------------------------------------
CDRscycler reported that medical center officials in Des Moines,
Iowa, detected potential asbestos-containing material.

Officials from Mercy Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa, have
canceled an that would have brought down the three apartment
buildings on the east side of the property after a material that
could be asbestos was discovered, according to a report from the
local CBS station KCCI.

The buildings were supposed to be demolished on March 12.

According to the report, crews will instead bring down the
buildings through traditional demolition means as a safety
precaution to avoid spread of the material.

Abatement work will be performed before the demolition, which is
expected to be complete in the summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumberland Council Offers Asbestos Help Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens, writing for The Sun Parramatta Holroyd, reported
that Cumberland Council has cleaned up its act on asbestos removal
and education.

It's trialling a new service to offer a limited number of free
household asbestos inspections by licensed experts.  They are
visual assessments only but will help residents understand where
asbestos is, or is likely to be in their homes.

The program is for households in the Cumberland LGA that are
mostly in original condition and built before 1990.  The next
inspection days are April 7-8.

The council also offers a free collection/disposal of small
amounts of loose bonded asbestos sheets from homes to discourage
illegal dumping.  Asbestos sheeting  must not exceed 10 square
metres per household.

"Asbestos is an issue that is especially important in the
Cumberland area because we are made up mainly of suburban areas
primarily built over three decades ago," council interim general
manager Malcolm Ryan said.

"It is important that residents get their houses checked or they
could be putting themselves in danger.  That is why council is
offering these free inspections and collections."

Greystanes resident Grahame Duerden has taken advantage of the
free asbestos pick ups.

"It's a terrific idea," he said.

"People need to be more aware of asbestos.  I had some old pieces
of fibro from doing some work in the laundry.  My house was built
in 1970 so the laundry was wired with fibro."

Mr Duerden would have been forced to find and pay for a specialist
contractor if the free council pick ups weren't available.

"The minimum price was $140 to get rid of it," he said.

"You can't take it to the tip anymore."

The council will hold two sessions in May for residents to find
out what asbestos could be located in the home and how to manage
it.  Participants will receive a free asbestos removal kit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm to Remove Asbestos from High School
---------------------------------------------------------
Pat Hughes writing for News Times reported that while students are
out for a two-week spring break, an Indianapolis firm will be
removing asbestos from different areas of Blackford High School.

School board members agreed to hire Air Co. of Indianapolis to
perform the work, which will start March 27 and be complete before
students return to the classroom on April 10.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Near Oroville Dam Spillway Rock
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashiah Scharaga writing for The Mercury News reported that
naturally-occurring asbestos has been found in the rock formations
and in the air near the damaged Oroville Dam main spillway,
according to a press release.

Although California Department of Water Resources said risk to
workers and the surrounding community is minimal, dust-control
operations are being increased.  Air quality will continue to be
monitored at the work site and nearby neighborhoods.

Bob McLaughlin, Butte County Air Quality Management District
assistant air pollution control officer, said because some air
quality tests came back positive, the area is being treated like a
contaminated site.

"Absolutely any time there's potential for public exposure to
asbestos it's a concern," he said.  "It's either there, or it
isn't.  If it's there, you do everything you can to minimize dust
emissions.  You have to assume it's everywhere (at the site).  You
need to be very diligent and proactive in protecting public
health."

California Department of Water Resources said it was discovered in
"limited areas" during the debris removal operation, and will be
addressed "safely and successfully" with standard operating
procedures.

The common mineral is found all over California, in 42 of its 58
counties, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Serpentine, which contains asbestos, is actually the state rock.

Asbestos is a human carcinogen, however, and can cause lung
cancers, including mesothelioma, if airborne asbestos fibers are
inhaled.  It's for this reason that naturally occurring asbestos
can be a cause of concern if it is crushed or similarly disturbed.
"Out of an abundance of caution," DWR has submitted a dust-control
and air monitoring plan to the Air Quality Management District.

Control measures already in place include wetting the soil, using
wet drilling methods and utilizing rumble strips on roads to
reduce dirt collection on heavy equipment.  Plans include washing
trucks and tires, using personal air monitors and increasing how
many air samples are collected.

DWR said it will continue to work with air quality officials,
geologists and safety officers to monitor risks as work continues.

McLaughlin said the Air Quality Management District is working
with DWR on additional monitoring to determine if there are
"ambient levels of asbestos that would be a concern."  DWR is
doing everything they can to minimize dust emissions, he said.
The Air Quality Management District's role is to protect the
public, and they will make sure DWR and contractors are proceeding
cautiously and operating under state-required airborne toxic
control measures.

If people have concerns or see an excess of dust in the area, they
can contact the Butte County Air Quality Management District at 1-
855-332-9400.

There is a county air monitor located by the staging area,
providing a live update of emissions in the area at bcaqmd.org.
Though that only includes information about dust levels, not
asbestos.

The spillway has been shut down since Feb. 27, after Lake Oroville
had been drawn down more than 50 feet from the emergency spillway
lip.  Crews working on the debris pile that built up at the base
of the spillway have removed 1.24 million cubic-yards of material
as according to DWR.  The pile was originally estimated at 1.7
million cubic-yards.

Releases from Lake Oroville through the Hyatt Powerhouse remain at
12,900 cubic-feet per second, while inflows are fluctuating in the
neighborhood of 19,000 cfs.

As a result, the lake level continues to rise, and was at 863.49
feet above sea level.  That's an increase of about 8 1/2 inches in
24 hours.

The flow in the part of the river past Oroville was increased from
10,700 cfs to 13,700 cfs, according to DWR, and releases from the
Thermailto Afterbay outlet were shut off.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Gravesend Waste Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carly Miller writing for BKLYNER reported that construction has
been temporarily halted after workers found asbestos at a former
incinerator site in Gravesend, where a new waste facility is
slated despite vehement protests from local pols and residents.

On March 1, workers excavating at the upcoming Southwest Brooklyn
Marine Waste Transfer Station saw what tests later confirmed to be
asbestos -- contrary to claims from the City that the site was
clean, according to Assembly Member William Colton.

DSNY project managers immediately contacted Community Board 11 for
an update and removal steps, including halting construction until
a licensed asbestos abatement subcontractor can remove the
concrete duct bank (where the asbestos was found) and surfacing
the area with heavy-duty asphalt.  "We'll be in constant
communication with the community board about this issue," project
manager Shavonne Williams told BKLYNER.

But this discovery is just the latest scandal dredged up at the
new Southwest Brooklyn Marine Waste Transfer Station -- located
off Shore Parkway's service road along Bay 41st Street.  It's
being built at the site of a former trash incinerator that was
illegally operated by the Department of Sanitation (DOS) for more
than 30 years, according to Colton.

"The Sanitation Department was never able to produce the required
Certificate of Closure for the incinerator that used to be there
and we knew this was a red flag," said Colton.  "Yet the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) just took
their word that the area had been properly decontaminated.  Now
they found asbestos there.  What else is in there that we do not
know about?"

Sentiment samplings from the area were found to contain toxic
levels of dioxins, lead, mercury, chlordanes, and Mirex (an
insecticide banned since 1976).  Many opponents of the Gravesend
Bay station fear that digging up the construction site will
release the pollutants into the waters.  As a result, strict
conditions were put in place as to how the dredging must be
conducted, but the community has documented multiple exposure
risks.

In 2015, Colton, Councilmember Mark Treyger, District Leader Nancy
Tong and Charles Ragusa, and community activists found evidence of
sloppy construction practices exposing neighbors to potentially
toxic dust and debris.

Colton's Anti-Waste Task Force penned a letter to the EPA, signed
by thousands of community members, pointing to several violations
of the Clean Water Act at the site, including a lack of protective
netting and barriers to keep soil and debris from discharging into
the surrounding water, and leaving the site uncovered, allowing
rainfall to accumulate and flood the area.

The litany of exposure problems attracted numerous rallies and
protests from community members to demanding a halt on
construction at the site.

Colton has been waging a years-long legal battle to block the city
from building the garbage station, including the release of
'absolutely disgusting' video footage of what appeared to be a
container dropping black sludge and debris into Gravesend Bay.
And though the efforts have led to a mountain of bad publicity,
construction for the garbage center prevails.

The station's construction is anticipated to be completed by the
end of this year and is slated to be operational by spring, 2018,
according to DSNY.

"Despite a series of lawsuits, the city and state continue to
disrespect this community," said Assemblyman Colton.  "Something
must be done about this mess before it's too late."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarence Valley Council Downplays Asbestos Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Howard writing for The Daily Examiner reported that Clarence
Valley Council has downplayed fears of asbestos contamination in
run off from its depot site in South Grafton.

The council's works and civil director, Troy Anderson, inspected
the site after two days of rain caused the site to fill with water
and runoff to stream into the city's stormwater drains.

Mr Anderson said contractors GHD, which inspected the site earlier
this month, believe the likelihood of the stormwater being
contaminated was very low.

He said the draft validation report submitted to Hutchinson
Builders showed all asbestos containing material (ACM) had been
removed from the soil surface onsite.

Mr Anderson listed four reasons residents could feel safe there
was little chance of contracting asbestos-related diseases from
the site.

Potential contaminants of concern in the soil were validated as
being within the adopted assessment criteria.

The potential contaminants of concern were not considered
leachable.

Although residual, bonded asbestos may be exposed from erosion of
subsurface soil and transported in stormwater, stormwater
contamination associated with bonded asbestos is not considered to
be a risk (as the only potential contaminant pathway for ACM is
inhalation).

Risk to potential receptors (from inhalation) of this ACM would be
very low in the short term due to high moisture content of the
sediment (which inhibits the release of potential asbestos fibres)
and the low risk of fibres resulting from bonded asbestos cement.

While Mr Anderson was looking at the site, the NSW Environmental
Protection Agency was also writing a report.

It advised the council and its contractors of the need to upgrade
the sediment and erosion controls at the site to ensure that the
necessary upgrades are being urgently implemented.

The EPA investigations will continue over the coming weeks in
order to determine whether there has been a breach of the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anaconda Wire May Face Fines for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Moore writing for M Live reported that hazardous asbestos at
the old Anaconda Wire building was not properly contained when the
building was torn down, resulting in likely fines for the property
owner and the demolition company, according to state documents.

Holton demolition company Press's LLC agreed to pay $10,000 and
Kirksey Investment Corp. has agreed to pay $3,000 in settlements
for asbestos-related air quality violations, according to the
documents.  The "consent agreements" were negotiated to address
violations that occurred during the demolition of the former
Anaconda Wire and Cable building on West Western Avenue in
Muskegon, documents show.

It took years to bring down the blighted Anaconda building, and
when demolition finally began, an inspection found hazardous
asbestos may have been released into the air in violation of state
and federal regulations.  Asbestos, which once was widely used in
construction materials, is known to cause cancers and fatal lung
diseases when it is disturbed and becomes airborne.

The nine violations were spelled out in notices sent Nov. 9, 2016,
to Press's owner Alan Jager and the Anaconda property owner Dennis
Kirksey of Kirksey Investment Corp.  The notices followed a Nov. 4
inspection of the property by the air quality division of the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The violations involved the failure to:

  -- Remove asbestos materials prior to demolition.
  -- Thoroughly inspect the project for asbestos-containing
     materials.
  -- Notify proper authorities of the presence of asbestos.
  -- Wet the asbestos material during and after demolition.
  -- Contain the asbestos in a leak tight container.
  -- Have a contractor supervisor on site.
  -- Deposit the asbestos material as soon as practical.

"The subject property had been partially demolished without a
scheduled demolition notification submitted, an asbestos survey
was not conducted, and there was no abatement of regulated
asbestos-containing material (RACM) that was found in the
facility," the violation notices state.  "The demolition
contractor removed pipes that had asbestos on them, and was not
qualified to do so."

The DEQ and the two companies negotiated separate consent orders
to settle the matter.  The state is accepting until April 10,
comments on the Kirksey order, which includes an agreement to pay
a $3,000 fine.  Comments can be emailed to Jason Wolf at
wolfj2@michigan.gov.

Dennis Kirksey declined to talk about the asbestos violations when
contacted by MLive Muskegon Chronicle.

The consent agreement with Press's, including the $10,000 payment,
is awaiting final approval by the air quality division director.
Alan Jager, owner of Press's, 8081 Holton Duck Lake Road, did not
return a phone call seeking comment.  Jager is an approved
contractor/supervisor with the state's asbestos abatement program,
according to the state's online contractor search.

Asbestos was commonly used in construction because of its
insulating and fire protection properties.  Ceiling and floor
tiles, pipe wraps and spray insulation were common products that
used asbestos, which was banned in Michigan in 1974.

Once disturbed, needle-like asbestos fibers can be easily inhaled,
penetrating lung and surrounding tissue, according to the Michigan
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.  This can lead to
fatal conditions including asbestosis, a scarring and hardening of
lung tissue; lung cancer; and mesothelioma, a scarring and
malignant tumor of the lung lining, according to LARA.  Asbestos
exposure also has been blamed for an increase in gastrointestinal
cancer.

The Anaconda building, which was heavily damaged by fire in 1999,
had been on the city of Muskegon's blighted buildings list for
years.  The city commission ordered its demolition last August,
and Kirksey Investment signed an agreement with the city of
Muskegon to have the structure mostly removed by Dec. 15, 2016.

The Anaconda Wire and Cable Co. was formed in 1919 to produce
copper wire.  It moved to the site on West Western in the early
1920s and employment peaked at around 400 through the 1960s.  But
demand for copper declined and the factory closed in 1981.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prentice Cafe Closes for Asbestos Clearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Ayscue writing for KentWired.com reported that workers
posted signs on several Prentice Cafe entrances warning the public
not to enter unless authorized due to the presence of asbestos.

Precision ProCut, a concrete sawing and drilling services company,
are currently clearing away the asbestos-containing materials from
the area.

"Asbestos was a very common additive to building materials, and
you can commonly find that in just about every single building
that was built before 1980," said Dennis Baden, the director of
Environmental Health and Safety.  "Prentice Hall falls in that
category."

Kent State conducted an asbestos survey of all university
buildings in 2011.  At the time, Prentice Hall was found to have
asbestos-containing materials, but the materials posed no risk to
the general public, Baden said.

"In this case, the flooring material, the glue ... contains a
small amount of asbestos -- I think it's 3 percent," Baden said.

Although the university could have worked overtop of the asbestos-
containing glue, they decided to remove it while renovating
Prentice Hall.  None of the asbestos-containing materials in Kent
State buildings have to be removed, but it usually is done,
"primarily because of public concern," Baden said.

Baden also said there is a "very, very low risk" of releasing the
asbestos fibers from the glue.

"In glues especially, the asbestos is bound very tightly in the
matrix of the glue, so there's no release of any asbestos fibers,"
he said.

Asbestos-containing material contains concentrations greater than
one percent asbestos by weight, according to the Kent State
Asbestos Management Program.

This program "provides for the safe and proper control of ...
asbestos containing materials in university buildings," according
to Kent State's website.

The program also requires university maintenance-related positions
to participate in asbestos awareness training.

While most forms of asbestos-containing material aren't illegal,
Baden said the university doesn't use it when building.

"We have a general practice that -- when we run across asbestos
materials during a renovation -- that we remove those materials,"
Baden said.  "Even though it's materials less than one percent, we
treat those usually as asbestos-containing as well."

Fork in the Road, the main-campus food truck, will be outside
Prentice Hall from 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day in lieu of
Prentice Cafe being closed.  Students can use cash, credit or meal
plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Timaru Northtown Mall
------------------------------------------------------------
The Timaru Herald reported that a small amount of asbestos has
been removed from Northtown Mall in Timaru and the owner says the
building is safe.

Fences were placed around the building frontage, reducing the
entrance on the east side of the mall and access to car parks on
the north side of the mall to one lane.

Scaffolding surrounding the frontage was wrapped in white plastic,
blocking the front doors.

Foodstuffs South Island owns the mall building. General manager of
property and retail development Roger Davidson confirmed a "low
quantity" of asbestos was discovered during a cosmetic upgrade to
the front of the mall.

"They were safe in their current environment but we have taken the
opportunity while doing the cosmetic upgrade to remove asbestos,"
Davidson said.

The mall and supermarket could still be accessed at the western
end and shoppers could walk to within a few metres of the main
entrance on the inside while the scaffolding and wrapping was in
place.

Davidson said the supermarket and shops were safe while the work
happened.

"There was some disruption already on site and it was in
everyone's best interests to do it (remove asbestos) at the same
time," he said.

Davidson said Timaru Construction, the contractor involved in the
extension and upgrade at Pak n Save, which adjoins the mall, used
a certified subcontractor to remove the asbestos.

Fred Anscombe, who is named on the Timaru District Council's
website as an asbestos removalist, confirmed he removed asbestos
from the site.

He described it as "the lowest grade (of asbestos) there is".  He
refused further comment on the grounds publicising the job would
be "scaremongering".

Davidson was unable to say how much asbestos material was removed,
when the job was done, how long it took and how the material was
disposed of.

Timaru Construction referred questions to Foodstuffs and the
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment referred questions
to Worksafe.

In an email response, a WorkSafe spokesperson said notification
for the removal of a small amount of "non-friable" asbestos at
Northtown Mall  was received on March 3.

Nationally, there is an average of 600 asbestos removal jobs
notified per month.

"WorkSafe does not have the capacity to oversee every job.
However, every (person) licensed to do asbestos removal is
required to have a minimum of one nominated supervisor whom will
ensure the asbestos removal is done according to the asbestos
removal control plan.

"The independent licensed assessor will provide the clearance
certificate to stipulate that the work has been completed and
there is no airborne asbestos fibre above the level of 0.01
fibres/ml and no visible remnants of asbestos," Worksafe said in
the email.

"It is rare for a building built before 2000 to not have asbestos
in some form or other."

When asked if the presence and removal of asbestos in one part of
a building could compromise the safety of asbestos in other parts
of the building, Worksafe said this was "very unlikely due to the
location of the asbestos".

Davidson said the cosmetic upgrade on the mall frontage involved
replacing cladding.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Asbestos Trusts Face Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Roger DuPuis writing for Central Penn Business Journal reported
that Utah's attorney general is suing four asbestos-related
trusts, including the Armstrong World Industries Inc. Asbestos
Personal Injury Settlement Trust, in search of information about
whether the trusts are doing enough to prevent fraudulent claims.

The Armstrong trust was established in 2006 as Lancaster County-
based Armstrong World Industries Inc. emerged from six years of
bankruptcy protection, prompted by lawsuits filed by people
suffering from asbestos-related illnesses.

Officials in Utah argue that abuse of the claims process is
draining away trust money intended to reimburse states for
asbestos-related Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.

"Plaintiffs' attorneys across the country are using asbestos
trusts to obtain significant monetary recovery for claims, even
where they would fail in the tort system," Utah officials argue in
the case, which was filed in state court.

"The abuse injures states by improperly draining the trust assets,
precluding future legitimate claimants from relying on asbestos
trusts, and leaving states with the high cost associated with
asbestos-related disease," the complaint adds.

In December, Utah's AG and his counterparts in 12 other states
sent a Civil Investigation Demand (CID) letter to the trusts
seeking information about their management of the funds. According
to the March 7 lawsuit, none had responded by that time.

Pennsylvania was not a party to the CID letter, whose signatories
included West Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The Armstrong trust, identified in the lawsuit as a Delaware
corporation, did not respond to a Business Journal request for
comment.

Forbes likened the CID and the lawsuit by the group of
conservative state AGs to a tactic often "used by more liberal
states to recover money from pharmaceutical manufacturers they
accuse of running up Medicare and Medicaid bills."

Utah also has been fighting alleged abuse of the trusts in other
ways, passing legislation last year to tighten requirements before
victims of asbestos exposure can receive compensation for their
illnesses.

As the Salt Lake Tribune reported, the Republican state
representative who backed Utah's HB403 was taking aim at what he
called "double-dipping," in which plaintiffs are awarded asbestos
damages in court then file claims against a trust.

The lawsuit raises similar concerns, arguing that attorneys for
plaintiffs wield excessive power over the claims process because
they sit on the committees that oversee the trusts.

"Thus, the evidentiary requirements for claims -- such as the
claimant's work history and proof of exposure -- are primarily
controlled by the same attorneys who collect contingency fees on
millions of dollars of claims paid from a trust each year," the
suit argues.

"This power imbalance in the asbestos trust system creates
problematic incentives for those running the trusts and results in
lax requirements for claims."

According to the suit, more than 60 manufacturers of asbestos or
asbestos-containing products have filed for bankruptcy, paying out
$17 billion since 2008.

Armstrong World Industries' reorganization plan called for
Armstrong to establish a trust, which received a one-time
contribution of about $1.8 billion in cash, notes and company
stock.

The trust had been a significant Armstrong stockholder, but
gradually began divesting itself.  When the trust sold off more
than $85 million worth of that stock in 2015, it dipped below the
10 percent ownership level.

Armstrong, meanwhile, spun off its flooring division last year as
Armstrong Flooring Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Details Emerge on Motat's Asbestos Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sergel writing for NZ Herald reported that more details
have emerged about the asbestos contamination of collections at
Motat, and what it will cost ratepayers to salvage what's worth
keeping.

Auckland councillors have agreed to give the museum an extra
$2.1 million in the next financial year, bringing its annual
funding to $15.2 million.

Motat director Michael Frawley said the museum needed extra money
because items at an off-site collection facility have been
contaminated with asbestos, and it will need to recover the items
that are worth keeping.

"We store approximately 80 per cent of our collection off-site.
We have to move those items, clean up, and relocate them."

Frawley has told a council committee meeting the museum will need
to employ extra staff to determine "whether it is worth retaining
those items because they're historically significant or have some
other importance to the museum, or whether they should be disposed
of".

In the long-term, the museum is also seeking another $100 million
from the council and $50 to $60 million from private sponsors to
fund a much larger redevelopment.

In a statement, the museum said the contamination was unforeseen,
and occurred in a building housing Motat's large collection of
items like buses and cars.

"The museum is working closely with asbestos removal experts to
resolve this issue and relocate the affected objects to new
storage premises following their decontamination.

"Many New Zealand buildings of a certain age were built with
material containing asbestos and unfortunately this particular
leased building has had some degradation.

"Once this became known, Motat brought specialist consultants on
board to advise the museum and formulate a plan to address the
problem.

"Additional resources will be allocated to the process of
cleaning, decontaminating and moving large artefacts which has in
turn expedited Motat's current collection review."

The museum has been under new management, after a report
criticising the way it operated was leaked to the Weekend Herald
in 2014.

The report, written in 2012, said under the previous management
the museum was "dysfunctional", riven with "childish" infighting,
had exhibits of doubtful quality, and spent ratepayer funding
poorly.

Frawley said since its relaunch, the museum had been trying to
rebuild its reputation, to attract corporate partners and private
sponsors who could support future development.

He said in addition to issues with its offsite collection, the
museum also needed to make major improvements to its on-site
buildings.

"The roof leaks in most of the buildings, most of the building
contains asbestos in some shape or form.

We don't know where the pipe work actually goes."

The revelations come as Auckland councillors have agreed to launch
an independent review into the city's cultural institutions.

Mayor Phil Goff said funding agreements and legislation have
prevented Auckland Council from having proper oversight of how
Motat and other institutions spend council funding.

"We're investing a huge sum of money. To have a 21st century
governance and accountability framework, I think, is absolutely
essential.

"We certainly don't have the ability to set priorities, and ... a
system that ensures transparency, accountability and value for
money."

Motat said it strongly supported the review, which has been
discussed for several years.

"This is a project which has been discussed by council for some
time and is something which Motat supports and welcomes for this
sector.

"Motat is pleased to hear that this review has now been formally
adopted by a unanimous vote of council."

A council report shows the review will address "tensions" about
the funding of Auckland Museum and Motat, and the need for long-
term storage facilities for Auckland Libraries and other
institutions.

It will also address the future of the Maritime Museum, whose
waterfront lease expires in 2025, and Auckland Stardome, whose
lease may expire in 2027.

Goff said Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Maggie Barry had
indicated the Government would be open to changing the legislation
that governs the institutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Romford Mum Could Have Died from Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Dare writing for Essex Live reported that a mum who died from
a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos may have come into
contact with the deadly material while at school, an inquest has
heard.

Artist Claire Hughes, 42, died from a lung-attacking cancer caused
by asbestos fibres -- which she could have inhaled while sat in
her old classrooms.

It is said the only time she was exposed to asbestos was when she
was 12 years old and there was construction work at her school,
the inquest at Essex Coroners' Court in Chelmsford heard.

Coroner Eleanor McGann said: "By the time she was even born people
were starting to realise the dangers of asbestos.

"By the time she would have entered the workplace people were
taking steps to ensure people were not in contact with asbestos.

"There is no evidence she has ever worked anywhere with asbestos.
There is the possibility of the school."

The cancer she suffered from is known as peritoneal mesothelioma,
which affects the lining of the lungs and abdomen.

Mrs. Hughes went to Warren Secondary School in Chadwell Heath near
Romford.

Numerous friends have posted messages on social media in her
memory.

One wrote: "My heart is broken I was hopping never to say goodbye
but heaven gained another beautiful angel. Sleep tight my love my
thoughts are with your family right now."

Another added: "I wish I could be there to say my final goodbyes,
you were taken way too soon."





                         *********


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  * * *