CAR_Public/170428.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, April 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 85



                            Headlines

5TH AVE POMPANO: Faces "Charne" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
AIR METHODS: "Day" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky Federal Court
ALLIANCE ONE: May 1 Hearing to Approve "Hyun" Case Settlement
AMERICAN FINANCE: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Maryland
AMERICAN PRO: Bid to Cert. Class in "Golden" Suit Under Submission

AMERICAN SENIOR: Faces Class Action Over Telephone Harassment
ANNEXMED BILLING: Blue Ridge's Placeholder Bid for Cert. Denied
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Defends Two Securities Suits in New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
ATLANTIC HOTEL: "D'Apuzzo" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court

AUSTRALIA: Christmas Island Asylum Seekers' Class Action Settled
BERKS COUNTY, PA: High Court Upholds Ruling Detainees' Case
BOSE CORP: "Zak" Sues Over Disclosure of Private Music Choice
BOSE CORP: Responds to Allegations in Privacy Class Action
BOSTIK INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Runyon" Suit

BRINKER RESTAURANT: "Cole" Files Suit Over GC Balance Redemption
C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Wins Final OK of "Babcock" Suit Settlement
CAR TUNES: Faces "Coley" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Objector Lawyers Want Share of Settlement
CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss

CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Request for Attorneys' Fees Remains Pending
CELADON GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Awaits Final OK of $23MM Ravenswood Suit Deal
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Defines Claims in Naylor Farms Suit in Plan
CHICAGO, USA: Aguilar Moves to Certify Class of ICE Detainees

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Claiborne" Class Suit in California
CLARK CTY COLLECTION: Petrich Seeks Certification of Four Classes
CNX GAS: Court Certifies Class of CBM Claimants in "Hale" Suit
CNX GAS: W.D. Va. Ct. Refuses to Certify Class in "Addison" Suit
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Tex.

COGNOSANTE LLC: Class of Case Analyst Certified in "Gullage" Suit
COLONY BRANDS: Faces "Clay" Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Final OK of $500,000 Settlement
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Defends Class Suit in California

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Amiri's Bid to Certify Class
CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final Approval of "Wood" Class Settlement
CREDIT CORP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
DEL TACO: Discovery in 2014 Wage and Hour Class Suit Ongoing
DEL TACO: Parties in 2013 Wage & Hour Suit Prepare Cert. Bid

EGALET CORP: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Pennsylvania
ELDORADO RESORTS: "Assad" Class Suit Remains Pending in Nevada
EQT PRODUCTION: Class of CBM Claimants Certified in "Adair" Suit
EQT PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Two Subclasses in "Adkins" Suit
EQT PRODUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Kiser" Suit

EXAR CORP: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Violations
FAMILY COUNSELING: Faces "Coons" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces "Hickman" Suit in C.D. California
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: "Green" Sues Over ADA Violation
FIBERCARE INC: "Vanosdall" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA

FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit in Pennsylvania
FOLLETT HIGHER: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Calls
FOX: Judge Allows Teen Inmates' Class Action to Proceed
FULLETT ROSENLUND: Hearing for Class Certification Set for May 3
GARDEN OF LIGHT: "Callanan" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri

GLOBAL TEL LINK: Bid to Approve "Lee" Suit Deal Under Submission
GOOD FEET: "Vasquez" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work
GREATER SUDBURY, ON: Could Face Class Action for Firehall Closure
HELIX ENERGY: Faces "Hugee" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage
HH-ENTERTAINMENT INC: Faces "Whitworth" Lawsuit Under FACTA

IDE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Background Check
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Briefing on Certification Bid Due on May 12
INTERCONTINENTAL: Guest Credit Card Hack May Spark Class Action
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: "Caraballo" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
INTERNATIONAL HAIR: "Doucet" Suit Moved to S.D. California

INTERNATIONAL WAREHOUSE: "Barahona" Seeks Min., Spread of Hrs. Pay
JOE'S BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KATY FURNITURE: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
KERYX BIOPHARMA: "King" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
KERYX BIOPHARMA: "Jackson" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.

KEY ENERGY: Settles Labor Class Action for $3 Million
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Classes Certified in Flushable Wipes Suits
LEWIS & BRACKIN: Faces "Lait" Suit in M.D. Alabama
LIFESHARE BLOOD: Certification of Class Sought in "Trisler" Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Investors Ask 9th Circuit to Revive Class Action

LINEN OUTLET: "Masoud" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
LOBLAWS: Rana Plaza Victims Seek Compensation in Class Action
MADISON SQUARE: "Yopp" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Pay
MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Brady" Suit in E.D. New York
MATCH GROUP: Faces "Perkins" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois

MDL 2263: Court Grants Amended Class Certification Bid
MDL 2724: Engineers Local 30's Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Suit Moved to E.D. Pa. from New Jersey
MDL 2724: Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
MDLIVE INC: Illegally Shares Patients' Medical Info, Suit Says

MICHIGAN: Sued Over Sex Discrimination in Job Assignments
MISONIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs Have Until June 8 to Amend Suit
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
MRS BPO: Facees "Hoffman" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MYLAN INC: Faces American Federation Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York
NAVMAR APPLIED: Faces "Ramos" Wage-and-Hour Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rubenstein" Suit Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Attia" Class Suit Remains Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: To Settle Cyber-Attack Suit for $1.6MM

NEIMAN MARCUS: "Connolly" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Nguyen" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Ohle" Suit to Return for Further Proceedings
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Tanguilig" Suit Remains Pending in California
NELSON NAME: Faces "Gamboa" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code

NEW YORK: Could Face Class Action Over Biased Property Tax System
NEW YORK: Has New Deal for the Disabled
NOBILIS HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Capelli" Suit in Ontario
NOTIS GLOBAL: Faces New Suit Amidst Shareholders' Class Action
NYCHA: To Launch Anti-Mold Program as Part of Class Settlement

O'HARE AUTO: "Bruno" Suit Asserts FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violations
OHIO, USA: Intellectually Disabled Class Certified in "Ball" Suit
OKCUPID: User Files Class Action Over Inactive Profiles
ONECOMMAND INC: 9th Circ. Standing Ruling Saves Axed TCPA Suit
OREGON: Drops Multiple Defenses in Timber Class Action

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA's Bid to Certify Class Due on Nov. 3
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Michaeli" Parties Working on Accord
PF CHANG'S: Anderson Moves for Certification of Action Under FLSA
PFIZER: Could Face Class Suit Over Antidepressant for Children
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Seeks 20-Day Delay to Respond to "Newman" Suit

PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Court OKs Stipulation to Toss "Dillard" Suit
POM RECOVERIES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lennon" Action Claims
PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Graham Moves to Certify Class of Employees
QUALITY THERAPY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kondati" Suit
QUICK LANE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Totte" Suit

RADIO RENTALS: Thorn CEO Quits Amid $50MM Class Action
RED DOG: Faces "Us-Chab" Class Suit in California
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Pacheco" Suit in E.D. New York
RIGHT PATH: "Benjamin" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification
ROCK FISH: Faces "Oliva" Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violation

RURAL/METRO: Faces Suit for Denying Crews Rest Breaks
PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Shabu" Suit Under FLSA, NYLL
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Judge Tosses Pollution Class Action
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Merger Suit
SODEXO INC: Lazo's First Motion for Class Certification Mooted

SIENTRA INC: Final Hearing for Settlement Approval Set for May 31
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Knutson Moves for Certification of Class
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Class Suit in Nevada
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: "Perry" Claims Administration Ongoing
TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces "Ramsaran" Suit in S.D. Florida

TARGET CORP: Class Actions Lawyers Get Big Slice of Settlement
TELIGENT INC: Faces NECA-IBEW Welfare Suit in S.D. Florida
TESLA INC: Faces "Sheikh" Consumer Fraud Suit Over Model S Sedan
UBER: Delhi Court Prohibits Drivers' Unions to Disrupt Services
URBAN SPACE: Faces "McClendon" Lawsuit Under New York Labor Law

UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: "Mollicone" Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
US RX CARE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses With Prejudice "Dees" Suit
VALHI INC: NL Industries Defends Suits Over Use of Lead Pigments
VENATOR MATERIALS: Antitrust Suits vs. Huntsman Remain Pending
VIRGINIA: Drivers Want Judge to Reverse DMV Class Action Ruling

VIRGINIA: Jail Wants Court to Weigh in on Wrongful Death Claim
VONS COMPANIES: "Carter" Sues Over Lack of Paystubs
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Sets April 2018 Trial for Class Action
WALTER INVESTMENT: Ditech Unit Must Pay Damages to Class Members
WALTER INVESTMENT: Has Nixed $24-Mil. Reserve for Approved Deal

WALTER INVESTMENT: "Kamimura" Suit Remains Pending in D. Nevada
WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Suit Remain Stayed
WELLS FARGO: "Harris" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Gibbons" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. New York

WEST VIRGINIA: Water Crisis Settlement Close to Finalization
WESTCHESTER VILLAGE: "Scheck" Suit Asserts Unfair Monopoly
YUM!: Auxilium Partners Appeal Ruling in Pizza Price Cut Case

* Capital Markets Committee Seek Class Action Regulation Reform
* Implementation of DOL's Fiduciary Rule Faces Delay
* Judge Moves Eagan Avenatti's Chapter 11 Case to California
* Legislators Excited by Construction Defect Law Progress
* Mintz Levin Attorney Discusses Class Arbitration Issues


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. GE Transferred to W. Va. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Directed to Produce Docs to Reinsurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Weil-McLain Remanded for New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evenheat, Sargent OK'd to Pursue "Belac"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Ct. Throws Out Appeal from Ford Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Preclude Brodkin Testimony Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Reverses Pa. Insurance Exclusion Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Review Jurisdiction Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims vs. Conveyor Corp. Dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Garlock's Ch. 11 Plan Set May 15

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Records $159.9MM Ch. 11 Related-Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST, Anchor End 900,000 Claims, Settle for $1.4B
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST LLC Pays $563.2MM for Mesothelioma Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Accrues $387MM for Asbestos Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CES Still Faces SiteTech Suit at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Continues to Face PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. D/C Remains Pending in California

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Suits at March 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face Claims in Miss., La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Still Faces 305 PI Suits


                            *********


5TH AVE POMPANO: Faces "Charne" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CHARNE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 5TH AVE POMPANO GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, d/b/a 4PLAY, and VINCENT AVERSA, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60772-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 19,
2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay (a) at least the
minimum wage required by law for every hour worked by Plaintiff
and the other similarly situated employees while failing to comply
with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip
credit; and (b) time and one-half of at least the minimum wage for
all hours worked by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
employees.

The Defendant owned and operated a gentleman's club.  Plaintiff
worked for Defendants as a non-exempt disc jockey, a/k/a "DJ,"
while also performing event planning duties for Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     One Flagler
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Fax: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
     E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com


AIR METHODS: "Day" Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Letch G. Day, Stephanie E. Fields,
Steven D. Frasure, Stephanie G. Logsdon, Sonya A. Burkhart, Leslie
H. Fryman, Sean H. Davenport, and Edwin Bentley, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Air Methods Corporation, doing business as: Air Methods of
Kentucky, doing business as: Air Methods, doing business as: Air
Idaho Rescue, doing business as: Arch Air Medical Service doing
business as: Black Hills Life Flight, doing business as: Lifenet,
doing business as: Lifenet South Carolina, doing business as:
Mercy Air, doing business as: React Rockford Memorial Hospital,
doing business as: Wyoming Life Flight, doing business as: Alabama
Life Saver, doing business as: Bayflite, doing business as: San
Antonio Airlife, doing business as: Guthrie Air, doing business
as: Lifestart, doing business as: Portneuf Air Rescue, doing
business as: Native Air, doing business as: Medflight, doing
business as: Reactsaints Flight, doing business as: Wakemed Air
Mobile, doing business as: Lifemed of Alaska, doing business as:
University Hospitals Medevac, doing business as: Tri-State Care
Flight, and doing business as: Mediflight of Oklahoma; William
Kelly Miller; and Joseph Barkley Hill, the Defendants, Case No.
17-CI-1071, was removed on April 20, 2017 from the Fayette Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky (Lexington). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:17-cv-00183-DCR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves.

Air Methods Corporation is an American publicly owned helicopter
operator. The Domestic Air Medical Division provides emergency
medical services to 100,000 patients every year, and serves 48
states and Haiti.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles William Arnold
          Christopher D. Miller
          ARNOLD & MILLER
          401 W. Main Street, Suite 303
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 381 9999
          Facsimile: (859) 389 6666
          E-mail: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com
                  cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
          COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
          2401 Regency Road, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 523 8883
          Facsimile: (859) 523 8885
          E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cynthia Blevins Doll, Esq.
          Megan R. U'Sellis, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS-LOUISVILLE
          220 W Main St
          E. ON U.S. Center, Suite 2000
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561 3990
          Facsimile: (502) 561 3991
          E-mail: cdoll@fisherphillips.com
                  musellis@fisherphillips.com


ALLIANCE ONE: May 1 Hearing to Approve "Hyun" Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HYUN SOON CHUNG, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02905-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
will move before the Court on May 1, 2017, or as otherwise
determined by the Court, for an Order granting preliminary
approval of a settlement class and related relief.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YMMA5VRE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
          411 Hacksensack Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


AMERICAN FINANCE: Defends Merger-Related Class Suit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc., is defending a merger-related class
action lawsuit in Maryland, the Company said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Substantially all of the Company's business is conducted through
American Finance Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "OP"), a
Delaware limited partnership, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

On September 6, 2016, the Company and the OP entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
American Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA"),
American Realty Capital Retail Operating Partnership, L.P. (the
"RCA OP") and Genie Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger
Sub"). The Merger Agreement provided for (a) the merger of RCA
with and into the Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with the Merger Sub
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and (b) the
merger of the RCA OP with and into the OP, with the OP as the
surviving entity (the "Partnership Merger", and together with the
Merger, the "Mergers"). The Mergers became effective on February
16, 2017.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of RCA filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and
Rendell, the "Director Defendants"), AR Global, and the Company,
alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA and the Director
Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR
Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by
the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in connection with the
negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on
the proposed merger of the Company and RCA and an amendment to
RCA's Articles of Incorporation.  Plaintiffs seek on behalf of the
putative class rescission of the merger transaction, which was
voted on and approved by stockholders on February 13, 2017, and
closed on February 17, 2017, together with unspecified rescissory
damages, unspecified actual damages, and costs and disbursements
of the action. The Court has not selected a lead plaintiff and has
adjourned the deadline for Defendants to answer or move against
the Complaint until 45 days after a Court-appointed lead plaintiff
either adopts the current Complaint or files an Amended Complaint.

The Company and the Director Defendants deny wrongdoing and
liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. Due to the
early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or
any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No
provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2016.

American Finance Trust, Inc., formerly known as American Realty
Capital Trust V, Inc., is a diversified REIT with a retail focus.
The Company owns a diversified portfolio of commercial properties
which are net leased primarily to investment grade and other
creditworthy tenants and a portfolio of stabilized core retail
properties, consisting primarily of power centers and lifestyle
centers.


AMERICAN PRO: Bid to Cert. Class in "Golden" Suit Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald has taken off calendar and
under submission the motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit
styled Lori Golden v. American Pro Energy, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-
MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that the matter is appropriate
for submission on the papers without oral argument, according to
the Court's civil minutes.  Accordingly, the hearing set on the
Motion for April 3, 2017, was vacated and taken off calendar.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u8CYQ5Vz


AMERICAN SENIOR: Faces Class Action Over Telephone Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against
American Senior Funding Corporation, a reverse mortgage provider,
citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes.

Carolyn Navarro of West Covina filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on April 13 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the defendant,
including 10 unknown individuals with the company, alleging that
it called the plaintiff to offer its services.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in October
2016, she suffered damages from receiving several unwanted calls.
The plaintiff holds American Senior Funding responsible because it
allegedly kept calling the plaintiff despite her request to stop
calling and despite her number being on the Nationa Do-Not-Call
Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages and any other relief as this
court deems just.  She is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian
R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of the Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02828-RGK-JPR


ANNEXMED BILLING: Blue Ridge's Placeholder Bid for Cert. Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Martin Reidinger denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
"placeholder" motion for class certification and request for
status conference submitted in the lawsuit titled BLUE RIDGE
PODIATRY ASSOCIATES, P.A., a North Carolina corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. ANNEXMED BILLING SERVICES INC., a New York
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-00078-MR-DLH
(W.D.N.C.).

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


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Defends Two Securities Suits in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., is defending two purported class
action lawsuits alleging violations of securities law, according
to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On February 6, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and two of its current officers, Yanbing
Min v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00880.
On February 27, 2017, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two of its current
officers, Dezi v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-01446. Both lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
are premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and
alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's
business, operations, prospects and performance during the
proposed class period of March 16, 2015 to February 3, 2017.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend all claims
asserted.

Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. is a pet therapeutics company focused
on licensing, developing and commercializing innovative
therapeutics for dogs and cats.  The Company's current portfolio
includes multiple therapeutics and therapeutic candidates in
development consisting of both small molecule pharmaceuticals and
biologics.


ASSET RECOVERY: Trujillo Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled YURIDIA TRUJILLO, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02303
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action over alleged violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The class consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses
(b) to whom Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC (c) sent a letter in the
form of Exhibits A-G (d) to collect a private student loan debt
(e) originated by Sallie Mae, directly or through an associated
bank, (f) on which the last payment or date of default (whichever
is later) had occurred more than 5 years prior to the letter, (g)
which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the
filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the
filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks 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=adVkNcKl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


ATLANTIC HOTEL: "D'Apuzzo" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel D'Apuzzo and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Hotel Group Assets,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-006193, was removed on April
20, 2017, from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
60776-WPD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

The Defendant is doing business in hotel industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Grasford Smith, Esq.
          Margaret Leslie Cooper, Esq.
          Michael James Gore, Esq.
          JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A.
          505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 650 5300
          E-mail: gsmith@jonesfoster.com
                  mcooper@jones-foster.com
                  mgore@jonesfoster.com


AUSTRALIA: Christmas Island Asylum Seekers' Class Action Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
9News.com.au reports that the settlement of a young asylum
seeker's damages claim over her detention as a five-year-old on
Christmas Island provides the girl with some measure of justice,
her lawyers say.

An in-principle settlement has been reached in the girl's case
against the Australian government, ahead of an eight-week trial
due to begin on April 26.

Lawyers for 'AS', now aged nine, alleged she received inadequate
care while in the Christmas Island immigration detention centre
and sustained physical and psychological injuries as a result of
her detention.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Tom Ballantyne said the in-
principle settlement will require the Victorian Supreme Court's
approval before the matter is resolved.

"We think this is an outcome that provides our client with some
measure of justice," Mr Ballantyne said in a statement to AAP on
April 24.

Maurice Blackburn launched the case in 2014 as a class action
seeking compensation for asylum seekers who allegedly suffered
injuries as a result of inadequate care on Christmas Island.

The class action was brought against the immigration minister and
Commonwealth of Australia, who denied the allegations.

About 35,000 asylum seekers in total were detained on Christmas
Island between August 2011 and August 2014, the period covered by
the class action claim.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Jack Forrest last month ruled the
case not proceed as a class action but as an individual claim,
finding there was a lack of commonality between the girl's claim
and those of other class action group members.

AS spent a total of 10 months detained on Christmas Island after
arriving by boat with her parents in July 2013, when she was five.

The family has been living in the Australian community on a
temporary bridging visa since January 2015, court documents show.

The case was expected to return to court on April 26 for the judge
to approve the settlement and make final orders resolving the
proceeding.


BERKS COUNTY, PA: High Court Upholds Ruling Detainees' Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Orozco, writing for Reading Eagle, reports that though the
asylum-seeking families in the Berks County Residential Center
face an uncertain future, they say they have faith that God will
help them, even if the United States government will not.

"In no moment were we ever defeated," a group of detained mothers
said on April 23 in a letter handwritten in Spanish and given to
one of the mothers' attorneys, Bridget Cambria.  "On the contrary,
they (federal judges) have given us motivation to continue to
fight and it has doubled our strength from when we first began
this battle."

About 70 people attended the vigil held in front of the family
detention center in Bern Township.  The vigil was organized by
Shut Down Berks Interfaith Witness, a network of faith-based
organizations calling for the closing of the center and the end of
the U.S. immigration policy of family detention.

The Berks center, which is run by the county through an agreement
with the federal government, is one of three such centers in the
country.  The others are in Texas.

The April 23 event was to show solidarity with 28 women and 33
children asylum seekers who were part of a federal court case led
by the American Civil Liberties Union that argued the families
were entitled to judicial review of their denials to enter the
country.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices declined
to accept the case for review.  The move upheld a ruling by the
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that found the
asylum-seeking families lacked the constitutional right to appeal
their denials.

"As you know, we had a petition we applied for 18 months ago and
we finally received an answer," the letter stated, referring to
the case.  "Unfortunately, it was not the answer we were hoping
for.  As we all know, this was the response given to us by man,
but the ultimate answer comes from God."

Cambria, her Reading practice partner Jacquelyn Kline, Reading
immigration attorney Carol Anne Donohoe and Philadelphia attorney
Michael Edleman filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
government and top officials to protect four children in the
center.

The children were granted a special status that gives young
undocumented immigrants who were abused a pathway to become a
lawful permanent resident.

Immigration officials are moving to deport those children and
their mothers, according to their lawyers.

Those four families have been granted temporary reprieve from
deportation until a federal judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania can review the case, Cambria said.

Attendees at the April 23 gathering sang gospel songs and prayed
for the families as 14 detained mothers watched and sang back to
the crowd from behind a wooden fence on the center's property.
"We feel blessed, strengthened and victorious," the letter said.


BOSE CORP: "Zak" Sues Over Disclosure of Private Music Choice
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE ZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSE CORP., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02928 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2017),
accuses Defendant of secretly collecting, transmitting, and
disclosing its customers' private music and audio selections to
third parties, including a data mining company.

Defendant Bose Corp. manufactures and sells high-end wireless
headphones and speakers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com



BOSE CORP: Responds to Allegations in Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Tim, writing for Critical Hit, reports that Bose was hit
with a class-action lawsuit, which claimed that its wireless
headphones and speakers were -- through their interconnected app -
- phoning home and revealing your listening habits.  The suit
alleges that he user listening habits are being fed to third
parties, presumably for marketing.

Why is this even important? Says the suit:

"For example, a person that listens to Muslim prayer services
through his headphones or speakers is very likely a Muslim, a
person that listens to the Ashamed, Confused, And In the Closet
Podcast is very likely a homosexual in need of a support system,
and a person that listens to The Body's HIV/AIDS Podcast is very
likely an individual that has been diagnosed and is living with
HIV or AIDS."

Bose has responded, denying malfeasance.  In a statement to
Ausdroid, Bose said:

"We understand the nature of Class Action lawsuits.  And we'll
fight the inflammatory, misleading allegations made against us
through the legal system.

Nothing is more important to us than your trust.  We work
tirelessly to earn and keep it, and have for over 50 years. That's
never changed, and never will.  In the Bose Connect App, we don't
wiretap your communications, we don't sell your information, and
we don't use anything we collect to identify you -- or anyone else
-- by name."

The astute among you would have noticed some important wording in
the statement.  Bose hasn't at all denied collecting data, just
that it's not identifiable data that they're sending off to third
parties.


BOSTIK INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Runyon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Gary Klausner denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class submitted in the lawsuit captioned Patrick E.
Runyon, et al. v. Bostik, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02413-
RGK-SP (C.D. Cal.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and false
advertising, among other allegations.  The Plaintiffs seek to
certify this class:

     All owners of single-family homes located in California in
     which Leonard's Carpet Service, Inc., installed ceramic,
     porcelain, or natural stone floor tiles on concrete
     substrates using D-70 as part of original/new construction.

Judge Klausner opines that the Motion is denied because the
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving that the
requirements of Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
are satisfied.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BN3KUuTp


BRINKER RESTAURANT: "Cole" Files Suit Over GC Balance Redemption
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Cole, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Brinker
International, Inc. and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. RG17857051 (Cal. Super., April 18, 2017), seeks to
permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants from refusing cash
redemptions from gift cards with a balance of less than ten
dollars.  The suit also seeks appropriate restitution and
disgorgement, costs of suit, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees
and such other and further relief for violation of the California
Business and Professions Code.

Brinker owns and operates more than 100 Chili's Grill & Bar
restaurants in the State of California. Plaintiff received a gift
card purchased and redeemable at Defendant's participating retail
locations. At one instance, Plaintiff requested the cashier that
the remaining balance on the gift card be redeemed for cash. The
cashier refused and plaintiff did not receive the balance on her
gift card. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary D. Garcia, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA
      3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 795-6580
      Facsimile: (619) 795-6582

            - and -

      Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq.
      Robert B. Hancock, Esq.
      PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
      50 California Street, Suite 1500
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 310-1940
      Facsimile: (415) 354-3508


C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Wins Final OK of "Babcock" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Marilyn Dolan Go unconditionally approves
the settlement agreement filed on July 13, 2015, by the parties in
the consolidated class action lawsuits entitled JENNIFER BABCOCK,
an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., a New York Corporation;
JOEL R. MARCHIANO, individually and in his official capacity;
JAMES W. ARGENT, individually and in his official capacity;
CYNTHIA A. MICHELS, individually and in her official capacity; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. 1:14-cv-03124-
MDG (E.D.N.Y.), and LINDA CAMPBELL-HICKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS,
INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03576-MDG (E.D.N.Y.).

Jennifer Babcock and Linda Campbell-Hicks brought these
consolidated actions alleging that the Defendants violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending collection letters
to consumers in which they attempted to collect unlawful fees for
payments made by credit card.  Plaintiff Babcock additionally
asserted a claim for violation of Section 349 of the New York
General Business Law.

The two classes described in the Settlement Agreement are
certified for settlement purposes:

   (1) All consumers to whom Defendants mailed a written
       communication in connection with an attempt to collect a
       debt, which included a statement that a "$3.00 convenience
       fee will be added for credit card payments," regardless of
       whether such fee was paid or not, during a period
       beginning May 19, 2013, and ending June 9, 2014 ("Class
       #1"); and

   (2) All consumers to whom Defendants mailed a written
       communication in connection with an attempt to collect a
       debt, which included a statement that a "$3.00 convenience
       fee will be added for credit card payments," and who paid
       such a fee, during a period beginning May 19, 2011, and
       ending June 9, 2014 ("Class #2").

The Court approves the "Plan of Allocation" governing the payments
to Class Members and directs the Parties and the Claims
Administrator to implement and disburse those payments in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, except that
the fund for Class #1 members shall be increased by unclaimed
monies from the fund for Class #2 members and by the $2,000
deducted from the service awards to the plaintiffs.

The Court approves the payment of attorneys' fees and costs of
$55,000 to counsel for plaintiff Babcock and $30,100 to counsel
for plaintiff Campbell-Hicks.  The Court approves payment of a
service award of $2,500 to each of the plaintiffs, which shall be
in addition to payments for statutory damages of $1,000 each under
the Settlement Agreement, $153 to plaintiff Jennifer Babcock for
actual damages, and any amount they are entitled to receive as
members of Class #1.

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


CAR TUNES: Faces "Coley" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COLEY and DOUGLAS ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAR TUNES STEREO CENTER,
INC. and MARK CONSTANTAKIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11233-
DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., April 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants
required or permitted Plaintiffs to work hours in excess of 40
hours per week, but failed to compensate Plaintiffs at a rate of
one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
over forty 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Car Tunes Stereo Center, Inc. owns and operates auto-sound
installation and auto-security installation retail locations.
Plaintiffs Michael Coley and Douglas Allen ("Plaintiffs"), and the
employees they seek to represent, are employees and former
employees of Defendant Car Tunes Stereo Center, Inc. who worked as
installers at various facilities owned and/or operated by
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maia Johnson Braun, Esq.
     David A. Hardetsy, Esq.
     GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
     2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
     Troy, MI 48084
     Phone: (248) 275-5200
     E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
             dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Objector Lawyers Want Share of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports a Texas lawyer
embroiled in a racketeering action accusing him and others of
being "serial objectors" out to simply claim a chunk of others'
negotiated class action settlements has inserted himself into
another massive class action deal, asking a federal judge to award
him money for representing an organization whose objection to the
attorney fee request in a USD56 million deal to end a class action
against a cruise line, phone poll operator and timeshare company,
helped reduce other attorneys' multi-million dollar payday.

On April 19, attorney Christopher Bandas --
cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com -- along with attorney Robert W. Clore -
- rclore@bandaslawfirm.com -- of Bandas' Corpus Christi, Texas,
firm, and attorney Jonathan Novoselsky --
jon@jonathannovoselsky.com -- of Chicago, filed a motion in
Chicago federal court, asking the court to grant them a USD59,000
cut of a settlement fund of potentially as much as USD76 million
established to end the litigation against Caribbean Cruise Line,
timeshare seller the Berkley Group and phone polling outfit
Economic Strategy Group.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly signed off on that settlement
agreement in March.

The underlying action in the case had alleged the cruise line and
other co-defendants had worked together to mask telemarketing
calls as political polling calls to skirt the requirements of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Poll participants were
told they could be eligible for a "free cruise" to The Bahamas,
and were connected with representatives of the cruise line and
timeshare sellers at the end of the polling call.

The settlement is considered the largest such settlement under the
TCPA ever secured.

As part of the settlement, attorneys from the Chicago firms of
Edelson P.C. and Loevy & Loevy requested fees of nearly USD24
million.

The defendants objected to that request, along with a potential
class member organization, identified as Freedom Home Care Inc.,
saying the attorneys had asked for too large a share of the
settlement fund.

Ultimately, the judge sided partially with the objectors,
approving a sliding scale, tiered formula to calculate what he
held to be the proper amount of money the plaintiffs' lawyers
should receive, arriving at a total of about USD15 million.
However, the judge said the total could climb to nearly USD19
million, depending on how many eligible class members submitted
valid claims under the settlement.

In their April 19 filing, Bandas and the other objector lawyers
said they deserved the lion's share of the credit for the fee
reduction, which they said freed up more money for the plaintiffs
class claimants.

"Significantly, Freedom Home Care was the only litigant to propose
the correct fee methodology for this large TCPA settlement - a
diminishing sliding scale applied to the whole fund (including
attorneys fees, but excluding administration and notice costs),"
Bandas wrote in his motion.

He argued the defendants subsequent objections argued for "a
dramatically inaccurate and never before applied approach omitting
attorneys' fees from the gross figure in calculating the
percentages," which the court did not apply, opting instead for
the method endorsed under the Freedom Home Care objection.
"The result is class counsel take approximately USD3-USD6 million
less than they sought from the class members' fund," Bandas wrote.
"Freedom Home Care's (sic) played an important role in limiting
class counsels' fees to a more reasonable sum for the benefit of
the class, and should be rewarded accordingly."

The motion also asked the judge to award Freedom Home Care
USD1,000 for its role as the formal objector.

The motion comes at the same time Bandas and the Edelson firm are
locked in litigation also pending in Chicago federal court.

In that case, Edelson has accused Bandas and others of engaging in
racketeering, by repeatedly representing purported objectors to
various class action settlements, simply to gain leverage to
extract payoffs from Edelson and other class action trial lawyer
firms. Specifically, Edelson has accused Bandas and others
associated with him of filing objections to the settlements to
either negotiate a separate deal for tens or hundreds of thousands
of dollars, or threaten appeals, followed by an offer to withdraw
any appeals if the class action lawyers pay them to go away.

Bandas has asked a federal judge to dismiss the suit, claiming
legal precedent has established that filing lawsuits or other
legal actions cannot be considered the basis for a racketeering
lawsuit. Bandas said, if the courts allow Edelson to move forward
with their racketeering action, it could inspire a flood of
similar racketeering-themed countersuits from others against
anyone who objects to class action settlements. [GN]


CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts and Karen Garloch at Charlotte Observer report a
North Carolina judge has refused to throw out a class-action
lawsuit alleging Carolinas HealthCare System engaged in illegal
and anti-competitive actions that have resulted in higher
insurance premiums for many people.

The civil lawsuit was filed last September, three months after the
state and federal governments sued Carolinas HealthCare over
alleged antitrust violations, suggesting the public nonprofit
hospital system has driven up health care costs through illegal
efforts to prevent competition.

Allegations in the suit are similar to those in the government's
civil claim. That likeness prompted hospital lawyers, in a motion
to dismiss, to call the class-action a "parasitic" lawsuit.

In his ruling this month, Judge Michael Robinson of North Carolina
Business Court denied that motion, just a little more than a week
after a separate judge denied the Charlotte-based health care
system's request to dismiss the government's case.

Both cases allege the system reduces competition through contract
restrictions placed on insurers that forbid them from steering
customers toward lower-cost, competing hospitals.

In a statement, Carolinas HealthCare said the class action case is
"without merit."

Carolinas HealthCare "has neither violated any law nor deviated
from accepted healthcare industry practices for contracting and
negotiation," the system said in a statement. Carolinas HealthCare
"looks forward to presenting its position in court" and "remains
committed to providing excellent care to its patients."

At a March 22 hearing in Charlotte, the hospital system's lawyer
outlined his argument for dismissal of the class action. He
claimed that plaintiffs had not adequately supported their
allegation that they were charged higher premiums for health
insurance because of illegal activities by the hospital system.
"There's got to be an injury before someone's got standing to
bring a lawsuit," said Charlotte lawyer Jim Cooney. "What is their
injury?

"Plaintiffs have the burden of showing they have suffered," Cooney
said. But other than a general statement that plaintiffs "may have
paid too much for insurance," he said they alleged no injury. That
is "a big hole in their case," he said.

Both the governments' suit and the class-action allege that
Carolinas HealthCare uses its dominance in the health care market
to persuade insurance companies to include language in their
contracts that encourages consumers to use Carolinas HealthCare
and discourages or forbids consumers from choosing Charlotte-area
competitors, such as Novant Health and CaroMont Health.
Plaintiffs allege Carolinas HealthCare imposed these so-called
"steering restrictions" in contracts with insurers beginning
around 2013. "These restrictions impeded, and continue to impede,
insurers from providing financial incentives to patients to
encourage them to use lower-cost but comparable or higher-quality
alternative healthcare providers."

For years, the plaintiffs allege, insurers have tried to negotiate
the removal of steering restrictions from their contracts with
Carolinas HealthCare, but have been unable to do so as a result of
the hospital system's market power.

As a result, consumers "pay higher prices for health insurance
coverage, have fewer insurance plans from which to choose, and are
denied access to consumer comparison shopping and other cost-
saving innovative and more efficient health plans than would be
possible if insurers could steer freely," the suit alleges.
The class-action suit also alleges that Carolinas HealthCare
"purports to be a nonprofit working in the public interest" but
"in fact operates in its own interest, leveraging market power to
maximize revenues at the expense of its patients." The suit says
the system has "expanded aggressively," growing by 50 percent
since 2011, reporting average annual profits of more than USD300
million and having more than USD2 billion in investments.

Plaintiffs' 'standing' questioned

Also at the March hearing on the question of dismissal, Cooney
said the three named plaintiffs in the class-action -- Christopher
DiCesare and Johanna Macarthurof Charlotte and James Little of
Wadesboro -- failed to make the case that their premiums would be
lower if Carolinas HealthCare were prohibited from the alleged
anti-competitive activity.

The lawsuits challenge certain contract provisions negotiated
between Carolinas HealthCare and four of the largest insurance
carriers in the country -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North
Carolina, Cigna, Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.

In his arguments before the judge, Cooney said the named
plaintiffs don't have "standing" to file the suit because they are
insured by Blue Cross and Cigna, not by the other two carriers. He
also said their lawsuit refers specifically to prices for "in-
patient acute hospital services" but the plaintiffs didn't claim
to have been treated at any hospital owned or operated by
Carolinas HealthCare or to have received the services they claim
are affected by the alleged legal activity.

Cooney added that Blue Cross does offer lower-cost options --
including a "narrow network" plan that includes Novant Health
only, to the exclusion of Carolinas HealthCare providers -- but
the plaintiffs did not choose them.

Brendan Glackin, a San Francisco-based lawyer for the plaintiffs,
said he would "love to know the answers" to Cooney's questions,
including how much consumers have been over-charged. But he said
he can't specify the damages to plaintiffs without going through
the "discovery" phase of the case, which would include the
exchange of documents and deposition of witnesses.

"This is not a question to be answered," said Glackin, citing case
law to support the plaintiffs' "standing" -- their right to sue
the North Carolina hospital system.

Quoting from the complaint, he said a major health insurer has
reported that Carolinas HealthCare demands reimbursement rates
that are up to 150 percent more than other hospitals in the
Charlotte area for providing the same services.

Before filing the class-action suit, Glackin's firm, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, had advertised on its web page that
it was looking for people who might have been harmed -- by paying
higher prices for insurance or having limited health care options
-- because of Carolinas HealthCare's alleged anti-competitive
actions. Glackin said plaintiffs in the class-action case include
both patients and employers who provide insurance for their
workers.

Carolinas HealthCare is the region's largest hospital system, with
a 50 percent share of the market. The system has USD9 billion in
annual revenue and more than 60,000 employees at more than 40
hospitals and 900 medical offices. Its closest competitor by size
is Novant Health, based in Winston-Salem, which owns five
hospitals in the Charlotte market and has less than half the
revenue. After Novant, the next-largest hospital system locally is
CaroMont Regional Medical Center in Gastonia, with less than one-
tenth of Carolinas HealthCare's revenue.

Federal case continues

In seeking to have the government's antitrust allegations
dismissed, Carolinas HealthCare noted the Department of Justice
has filed only one other lawsuit challenging the legality of
"steering provisions" -- against American Express.

In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the
government's arguments in the American Express case. Although the
North Carolina judge is not bound to follow that opinion,
Carolinas HealthCare lawyers filed a brief in October arguing the
lawsuit against the hospital system should be dismissed based on
that ruling.

Hospital lawyers said the Second Circuit has "flatly rejected the
legal arguments at the core of the government's claims against"
the hospital system. The idea "that anti-steering provisions are
inherently anti-competitive -- was just dealt a fatal blow."

In his March 30 ruling on the Carolinas HealthCare antitrust case,
Judge Robert Conrad wrote it's "plausible" the system violated
federal antitrust law. The suit is "full of reasons" to believe
the system's market power has the potential for "genuine adverse
effects on competition," Conrad wrote in his order denying the
system's dismissal request.

But he also noted that the court has not yet been presented with
enough facts for it to conclude whether Carolinas HealthCare's
restrictions on insurers impede competition in the market.[GN]


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Request for Attorneys' Fees Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the attorneys' fees request is complete and remains
pending in connection with the settled consolidated merger-related
lawsuit, CECO Environmental Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 3, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of
100% of PMFG, Inc.'s outstanding common stock for a purchase price
of $136.7 million.

Since the public announcement of the proposed Mergers on May 4,
2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of
the PMFG Board have been named as defendants in three lawsuits
related to the Mergers, which were filed by alleged stockholders
of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The
first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also
purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court
of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and
third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been
consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and
collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the
Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Mergers fail to
properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those
breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger
Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)
that the PMFG Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Mergers for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted
process by (1) agreeing to lock up the Mergers with deal
protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to
solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders
from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)
participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG
Board and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and
legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO,
Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure
provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9,
2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to
enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed-
upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs
and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as
other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants
entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.
In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in
order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the
proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court
approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the
settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the
decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement
and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such
claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not
affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is
expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also
resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the
plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non-
jury trial on August 15, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered
an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and
setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider
whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed
settlement.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlement
and filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice.
On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' request and
dismissed their claims with prejudice.  The Court retained
jurisdiction to consider any applications for "mootness" based
attorneys' fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counsel
for the objector.

Briefing on the attorneys' fees request is complete, and it
remains pending.

CECO Environmental Corp. is a diversified global provider of
leading highly engineered technologies to the environmental,
energy, and fluid handling and filtration industrial segments,
targeting specific niche-focused end markets through an attractive
asset-light business model, strategically balanced across the
world. CECO has over $5 billion of installed equipment base with
end users, which the Company targets to expand and grow a higher
recurring revenue of aftermarket products and services.


CELADON GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS CHAVEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CELADON GROUP, INC., BOBBY L. PEAVLER, and
PAUL A. WILL, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02828 (S.D.N.Y., April
19, 2017), alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in
violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically,
Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (i) CGI's equity contribution to
its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2 million,
rather than the $100 million contribution the Company reported in
its public filings; (ii) the Company is being actively
investigated by the SEC; and (iii) that as a result of the
foregoing, CGI's publicly disseminated financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

CGI, through its subsidiaries, provides long-haul, full-truckload
freight service across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The
Company also provides supply chain management solutions such as
warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as well as freight
brokerage services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-905-0509
     Fax: 212-905-0508
     E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Awaits Final OK of $23MM Ravenswood Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company awaits final approval of a subsidiary's
$23 million settlement in two lawsuits relating to Ravenswood
Retiree Medical Benefits, according to the Company's March 14,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November 2009,
the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate
suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum
Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to
the foregoing.

On February 9, 2017, CAWV entered into a settlement agreement in
potential settlement of these actions. Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, CAWV has agreed to make payments into a
trust for the benefit of the CAWV retirees in the aggregate amount
of $23,000,000 over the course of 10 years, with $5,000,000
payable upon final approval by the court of the settlement
agreement and $2,000,000 payable annually thereafter for nine
years. The Company recognized a $23,000,000 liability in the
consolidated balance sheets with a corresponding expense included
in Ravenswood charges in the consolidated statements of operations
in 2016. The settlement agreement is subject to final court
approval which is not expected before the third quarter of 2017.

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum
and operates aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the
United States and Iceland.  The Company's primary aluminum
facilities produce standard-grade and value-added primary aluminum
products.  The Company is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located in Chicago, Illinois.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Defines Claims in Naylor Farms Suit in Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc., said claims arising from the lawsuit
initiated by Naylor Farms, Inc. & Harrel's LLC are considered
"Royalty Payment Litigation Claims" in its plan of reorganization,
according to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered its
findings of fact, conclusions of law and order confirming the
Joint Plan of Reorganization for Chaparral Energy, Inc. and its
Affiliate Debtors under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated
January 25, 2017.

Under the Plan, the "Royalty Payment Litigation Claims" is defined
as any and all Claims (including, without limitation, attorney and
other professional fees incurred by the Holders of such Claims)
arising from or in connection with any Debtor's alleged failure to
properly report, account for, and distribute royalty interest
payments to owners of mineral interests in the State of Oklahoma,
including the asserted civil class action lawsuit pending before
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma, captioned Naylor Farms, Inc. & Harrel's LLC, v.
Chaparral Energy, LLC, Case No. 5-11-cv-00634-HE.


CHICAGO, USA: Aguilar Moves to Certify Class of ICE Detainees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RONY CHAVEZ AGUILAR, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE; GLENN
TRIVELINE, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's
Chicago Field Office; JOHN F. KELLY, Security of Homeland
Security; THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in their official capacities, Case No. 1:17-cv-02296
(N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for an order granting class
certification of the proposed class defined as:

     All persons who are or will be detained under the authority
     of ICE within the Chicago Area of Responsibility for over 48
     hours, where ICE has not initiated removal proceedings by
     filing a Notice to Appear with the immigration court and
     have not brought the individual for a hearing before an
     immigration judge or other detached and neutral judicial
     officer, and has not initiated another form of removal
     proceedings.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, who are subject to
detention by ICE within the Chicago Area of Responsibility.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TfsJ2Zwz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Fleming, Esq.
          Charles Roth, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1370
          Facsimile: (312) 660-1500
          E-mail: mfleming@heartlandalliance.org
                  croth@heartlandalliance.org


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Claiborne" Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Church & Dwight
Co.

The case is captioned Kenric Claiborne, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Church &
Dwight Co., Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00746-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., April
13, 2017).

Based in Ewing, New Jersey, Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a
manufacturer of household products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com


CLARK CTY COLLECTION: Petrich Seeks Certification of Four Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Petrich asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action titled DANIEL PETRICH, individually and on behalf of a
class v. CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02396 (N.D. Ill.), alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and state law, may proceed as a class action
against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of four classes, corresponding
to the four claims alleged:

   1. With respect to Count I, alleging violation of the FDCPA by
      failing to properly identify the owner of the debt,
      plaintiff seeks certification of a class of (a) all natural
      persons (b) to whom defendant sent a letter (c) in the form
      represented by Exhibit A (d) which letter was sent at any
      time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing
      of this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this
      action;

   2. With respect to Count II, alleging violation of the FDCPA
      by failing to separately identify collection costs added to
      the debt, the class consists of (a) all natural persons (b)
      to whom defendant sent a letter (c) which included
      collection costs in the balance sought; (d) but did not
      specifically identify the collection costs as such (e)
      which letter was sent at any time during a period beginning
      one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21
      days after the filing of this action;

   3. With respect to Count III, alleging violation of the FDCPA
      by adding collection costs prohibited by state law, the
      class consists of (a) all natural persons (b) to whom
      defendant sent a letter (c) in which defendant added
      collection costs to the balance sought (d) that had not
      been added by the creditor prior to defendant receiving the
      debt, (e) which letter did not specifically identify the
      collection costs as such (f) and which did not seek to
      collect a judgment (g) which letter was sent at any time
      during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of
      this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this
      action; and

   4. With respect to Count IV, alleging violation of Nevada
      consumer protection statutes by adding collection costs
      prohibited by state law, the class consists of (a) all
      natural persons (b) to whom defendant sent a letter (c) in
      which defendant added collection costs to the balance
      sought (d) that had not been added by the creditor prior to
      defendant receiving the debt, (e) which letter did not
      specifically identify the collection costs as such (f) and
      which did not seek to collect a judgment (g) which letter
      was sent at any time during a period beginning 4 years
      prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days after
      the filing of this action and (h) was sent to either (A)
      collect a debt incurred in Nevada, or (B) to a Nevada
      resident.

The Plaintiff further asks 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=1aNknUPj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


CNX GAS: Court Certifies Class of CBM Claimants in "Hale" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James P. Jones grants the renewed motion for class
certification and certifies the action entitled JEFFERY CARLOS
HALE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-00059-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.),
as a class action.

The certified class is defined as:

     All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were
     identified by CNX Gas Company, LLC ("CNX") in filings with
     the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM
     estate interests and for whom CNX has applied, as of the
     later of the date of this Court's class certification order
     or the resolution of an interlocutory appeal of such order,
     pursuant to Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.22:2(A), for the
     release of funds held in escrow or internally, and all such
     gas claimants who have received distributions from escrow or
     directly from CNX as a result of a judicial determination of
     ownership or agreement between September 23, 2010 and
     January 1, 2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia
     Code Section 45.1-361.1.

     The Class excludes (a) CNX, (b) any person who serves as a
     judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (c) any
     individuals who have received a Court-supervised accounting
     of CNX's CBM royalty payments into escrow or internal
     suspense, and (d) any person who operates a CBM well in
     Virginia and any person who holds a working interest in a
     CBM well operated by CNX in Virginia.

Jeffrey Carlos Hale is appointed as Class representative.  These
law firms are appointed jointly as Class counsel: Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A.;
Glubiak Law Office; Neal & Harwell, PLC; Law Offices of Richard R.
Barrett, PLLC; Barrett Law Group, P.A.; and The White Law Office.

In addition, Judge Jones denies the motion for hearing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v5vBkNv3


CNX GAS: W.D. Va. Ct. Refuses to Certify Class in "Addison" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James P. Jones denied the renewed motion for class
certification and the motion for hearing filed in the lawsuit
styled DORIS BETTY ADDISON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-
00065-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oa3mf4ZL


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt International Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Texas,
according to the Company's March 14, 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 November 2014, two purported stockholders,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
and Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of our securities from February 21, 2012 through November 4, 2014
(the "St. Lucie lawsuit"). The St. Lucie lawsuit, filed against us
and certain officers, former and current members of the Board of
Directors, underwriters, and investment firms and funds, asserted
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures, primarily regarding compliance with the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") in our Angolan operations and the
performance of certain wells offshore Angola."

"In December 2014, Steven Neuman, a purported stockholder, filed a
substantially similar lawsuit against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through August 4, 2014 (the
"Neuman lawsuit"). Like the St. Lucie lawsuit, the Neuman lawsuit
asserted violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding our compliance with the FCPA in our Angolan
operations."

"In March 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Neuman lawsuit with the St. Lucie lawsuit (the "Consolidated
Action") and also entered an order in the Consolidated Action
appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed
their consolidated amended complaint in May 2015. Among other
remedies, the Consolidated Action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and
expenses to the plaintiffs."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in June 2015, and the other defendants also filed motions to
dismiss. The Court denied our motion to dismiss in January 2016,
and, in March 2016, the Court also denied our motion requesting
that the Court certify its order on the motions to dismiss so that
we may seek interlocutory appellate review of the order.  Lead
Plaintiffs also have filed a motion for class certification,
seeking to certify a class of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between March 1,
2011 and November 3, 2014.  The matter remains ongoing."

Cobalt International Energy, Inc., is an independent exploration
and production company with operations in the deepwater U.S. Gulf
of Mexico and offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa.


COGNOSANTE LLC: Class of Case Analyst Certified in "Gullage" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Aleta A. Trauger granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notification
to all putative class members filed in the lawsuit titled DANIYA
GULLAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COGNOSANTE, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02816 (M.D. Tenn.).

The Court conditionally certifies the matter as a collective
action consisting of all individuals, who held the position of
Case Analyst II at the defendant's Nashville location at any time
since October 31, 2013 and who performed pre-shift or post-shift
off-the-clock work for which they received no compensation.

The Court further orders that the Defendant will provide the
Plaintiff with the names, last known mailing addresses, and e-mail
addresses for all putative class members within 14 days of the
date of the Order.  The parties are directed to confer and, within
20 days of the date of the Order, file agreed-upon notice and
consent forms consistent with the Court's findings in the
accompanying memorandum.  To the extent that the parties are
unable to agree upon a notice and consent form, they will each
file a proposed version of the notice and consent form within
20 days of the date of the Order, and the Court will resolve any
differences between the documents.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BDO9qSKv


COLONY BRANDS: Faces "Clay" Suit in Western District of Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony Brands, Inc.
The case is captioned as Lisa Clay, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Colony Brands, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00307 (W.D. Wisc., Apr. 24, 2017).

Colony Brands is a mail-order and electronic retail company known
for its cheese, sausage, chocolate, fruitcakes, and other food
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Agruss, Esq.
          AGRUSS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4809 N. Ravenswood Avenue, Ste. 419
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (312) 224 4695
          Facsimile: (866) 583 3695
          E-mail: michael@agrusslawfirm.com


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 29, 2017, in the case
entitled Angel Bakov, et al. v. Consolidated World Travel, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber.

The minute entry states that the motion by Plaintiff Angel Bakov
to certify class is denied as moot, given the newly filed motion
at ECF No. 98.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qyBZWjiD


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Final OK of $500,000 Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., awaits final approval of a
$500,000 settlement in a class action lawsuit involving Covenant
Transport, Inc., according to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Our Covenant Transport subsidiary is a
defendant in a lawsuit that was filed on August 17, 2015 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County.
This lawsuit arises out of the work performed by the plaintiff as
a company driver for Covenant Transport during the period of
August, 2013 through October, 2014.  The plaintiff is seeking
class action certification under the complaint.  The case was
removed from state court in September, 2015 to the U.S. District
Court in the Central District of California, and subsequently, the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of Tennessee on October 5, 2015 where the case is now
pending.  The complaint asserts that the time period covered by
the lawsuit is "the four (4) years prior to the filing of this
action through the trial date" and alleges claims for failure to
properly pay for rest breaks, inspection time, waiting time,
fueling and paperwork time, meal periods  and other related wage
and hour claims under the California Labor Code."

The parties engaged in mediation of the dispute, which resulted in
a comprehensive settlement of all class member claims upon payment
of $500,000 by Covenant Transport.  The settlement received
preliminary approval of the court in December, 2016 and is now
pending final approval.

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., was founded in 1986 as a
provider of expedited long haul freight transportation, primarily
using two-person driver teams in transcontinental lanes.  Since
that time, the Company has grown from 25 tractors to approximately
2,550 tractors and expanded its services from predominantly long
haul dry van to include refrigerated, dedicated, cross-border,
regional, and brokerage.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Defends Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc., is defending a putative class action
lawsuit commenced in California, the Company disclosed in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
14, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit
filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass
(a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have
the lawsuit certified as a class action case, wherein he alleges
violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes over a
four year period of time, including failure to pay wages for all
hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and paid rest
breaks, failure to pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to
reimburse certain business expenses, failure to pay vested
vacation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to timely pay final
wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
unfair and unlawful competition."

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., was founded in 1986 as a
provider of expedited long haul freight transportation, primarily
using two-person driver teams in transcontinental lanes.  Since
that time, the Company has grown from 25 tractors to approximately
2,550 tractors and expanded its services from predominantly long
haul dry van to include refrigerated, dedicated, cross-border,
regional, and brokerage.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Denial of Amiri's Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit entitled FARAMARZ AMIRI, an
individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No.
8:16-cv-00540-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to deny the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Motion is made on the grounds that a defendant may file a pre-
emptive motion to deny certification in cases where, as here, the
evidentiary record reveals that the grounds for certification
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be
satisfied, Cox Communications contends.  Cox Communications argues
that because the evidence shows that individualized issues
necessarily predominate as to the Plaintiff's meal period, rest
break, on-call wages, off-the-clock, and derivative penalty claims
and that class litigation is not the superior method of
litigation, the Plaintiff cannot meet his burden under Rule 23(a)
or Rule 23(b)(3) necessary to support certification.

Furthermore, Cox Communications insists, to the extent the
Plaintiff asserts any collective issues, they apply to no larger
than a group of nine Orange County Fiber Techs, which is a group
too small to meet the numerosity requirements of Rule 23(a).

The Court will commence a hearing on May 8, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.

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

Defendant COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, is represented by:

          Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          Jason P. Brown, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com
                  pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
                  jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Wins Final Approval of "Wood" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale enters a final order
approving the parties' class settlement agreement in the lawsuit
captioned LISA A. WOOD, an individual; on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri
Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1
THROUGH 10, Case No. 6:16-cv-01098-KGG (D. Kan.).

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All individuals with addresses in the State of Kansas to
     whom Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter, between
     April 12, 2015, and May 3, 2016, which sought to collect a
     debt on which the last payment or activity on the
     individual's account had occurred more than five years prior
     to the date of the letter.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Credit Control will
make these payments:

   (a) Credit Control will create a class settlement fund of
       $19,500 ("Class Recovery"), which the Settlement
       Administrator will distribute pro rata among those Class
       Members who received the Class Notice and did not exclude
       themselves from the Settlement ("Claimants").  Claimants
       will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by
       check.  Checks issued to Claimants will be void sixty (60)
       days from the date of issuance.  Any checks that have not
       been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed
       funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as
       a cy pres award to Kansas Legal Services, Inc.;

   (b) Credit Control will pay the Plaintiff $3,500; and

   (c) Credit Control will pay Class Counsel $55,000 for their
       attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action.  Class
       Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from
       Credit Control or any Class Members.

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


CREDIT CORP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hallie Neill, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit
Corp Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Tasman Credit, Case No. 1:17-cv-02689
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Corp Solutions, Inc. operates a receivables management
company that purchases and collects consumer debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com

DEL TACO: Discovery in 2014 Wage and Hour Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is in process in the 2014 wage and hour lawsuit filed by
a former employee, according to Del Taco Restaurants, Inc.'s March
13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to
assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the
individual claims.

Del Taco says it has several defenses to the action that it
believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as
the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc., formerly known as Levy Acquisition
Corporation, was originally incorporated in Delaware on August 2,
2013, as a special purpose acquisition company, formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or other similar
business combination with one or more businesses.  On June 30,
2015, LAC consummated its business combination with Del Taco
Holdings, Inc. ("DTH"), pursuant to the agreement and plan of
merger dated as of March 12, 2015 by and among LAC, Levy Merger
Sub, LLC, LAC's wholly owned subsidiary, and DTH. Under the Merger
Agreement, Levy Merger Sub merged with and into DTH, with DTH
surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of LAC (the
"Business Combination" or "Merger"). In connection with the
closing of the Business Combination, LAC changed its name from
Levy Acquisition Corp. to Del Taco Restaurants, Inc.


DEL TACO: Parties in 2013 Wage & Hour Suit Prepare Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to
class certification in the 2013 wage and hour lawsuit pending in
California, Del Taco Restaurants, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13,
2017, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime
wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its
California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the
parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class
certification.

Del Taco says it has several defenses to the action that it
believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as
the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter. However, based on management's current understanding of
the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe
that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss
and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, operations or cash flows.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc., formerly known as Levy Acquisition
Corporation, was originally incorporated in Delaware on August 2,
2013, as a special purpose acquisition company, formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or other similar
business combination with one or more businesses.  On June 30,
2015, LAC consummated its business combination with Del Taco
Holdings, Inc. ("DTH"), pursuant to the agreement and plan of
merger dated as of March 12, 2015 by and among LAC, Levy Merger
Sub, LLC, LAC's wholly owned subsidiary, and DTH. Under the Merger
Agreement, Levy Merger Sub merged with and into DTH, with DTH
surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of LAC (the
"Business Combination" or "Merger"). In connection with the
closing of the Business Combination, LAC changed its name from
Levy Acquisition Corp. to Del Taco Restaurants, Inc.


EGALET CORP: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Egalet Corporation is defending itself against two putative class
action lawsuits initiated in Pennsylvania, according to the
Company's March 13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet and current officers Robert S. Radie, Stanley J.
Musial, and Jeffrey M. Dayno. These two complaints, captioned
Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v.
Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities
fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet securities between December
15, 2015 and January 9, 2017. The allegations center on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for oral abuse-deterrent labeling.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend these
actions vigorously.  The Company says it cannot determine the
likelihood of, nor can it reasonably estimate the range of, any
potential loss, if any, from these lawsuits.

Egalet Corporation is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical
company developing, manufacturing and commercializing innovative
treatments for pain and other conditions.  Given the need for
acute and chronic pain products and the issue of prescription
abuse, the Company is focused on bringing non-narcotic and abuse-
deterrent opioid formulations to patients and physicians.  The
Company is currently marketing SPRIX(R) (ketorolac tromethamine)
Nasal Spray and OXAYDO(R) (oxycodone HCI, USP) tablets for oral
use only -- CII ("OXAYDO")


ELDORADO RESORTS: "Assad" Class Suit Remains Pending in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative stockholder class action lawsuit entitled captioned
Assad v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., et al., remains pending in
Nevada, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 19, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Isle of Capri
Casinos, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Isle" or "Isle of Capri"),
Eagle I Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub A"), and Eagle
II Acquisition Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub
B"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, (1)
the merger of Merger Sub A with and into Isle, with Isle as the
surviving entity (the "First Step Merger"), and (2) a subsequent
merger whereby Isle will merge with and into Merger Sub B, with
Merger Sub B as the surviving entity (the "Second Step Merger" and
together with the First Step Merger, the "Mergers").

In connection with the Mergers, a class action lawsuit was filed
by a purported stockholder of the Company alleging breach of
fiduciary duty by the Company board of directors in connection
with the Mergers. The case was filed on November 8, 2016 in the
Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and is
captioned Assad v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., et al., case no. CV 16-
02312. The case, which purports to be a class action on behalf of
all of the stockholders of the Company, alleged, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty in failing to disclose all
material information to stockholders in seeking approval of the
issuance of shares of Company Common Stock in the Mergers and
requested injunctive relief and an award of fees and costs
incurred by the plaintiff in the action.

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

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia.  The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by
its gaming operations, but the Company uses its hotels,
restaurants, bars, entertainment, racing, retail shops and other
services to attract customers to its properties.


EQT PRODUCTION: Class of CBM Claimants Certified in "Adair" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class
certification and certified as a class action the lawsuit
captioned ROBERT ADAIR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv-
00037-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.).

The certified class is defined as:

     All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were
     identified by EQT Production Company ("EQT") in filings with
     the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM
     estate interests and for whom EQT has applied, as of the
     later of the date of this Court's class certification order
     or the resolution of an interlocutory appeal of such order,
     pursuant to Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.22:2(A), for the
     release of funds held in escrow or internally, and all such
     gas claimants who have received distributions from escrow or
     directly from EQT as a result of a judicial determination of
     ownership or agreement between June 15, 2010 and January 1,
     2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia Code Section
     45.1-361.1.

     The Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) any person who serves as a
     judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (c) any
     individuals who have received a Court-supervised accounting
     of EQT's CBM royalty payments into escrow or internal
     suspense, and (d) any person who operates a CBM well in
     Virginia and any person who holds a working interest in a
     CBM well operated by EQT in Virginia.

Robert Adair is appointed as Class representative.  These law
firms are appointed jointly as Class counsel: Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A.;
Glubiak Law Office; Neal & Harwell, PLC; Law Offices of Richard R.
Barrett, PLLC; Barrett Law Group, P.A.; and The White Law Office.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wWc4p0cL


EQT PRODUCTION: Court Certifies Two Subclasses in "Adkins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James P. Jones grants the renewed motion for class
certification and the action captioned EVA MAE ADKINS, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION
COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv-00041-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.), is certified
as a class action with respect to these claims:

   a. The claims for conversion, excluding the issue of the
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule; and

   b. The claims for breach of contract, excluding the issues of
      the Defendant's allegedly improper deductions and
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule, and
      conditional upon a motion being filed within 30 days
      requesting the substitution of an appropriate class
      representative and an order thereafter being duly entered
      by the Court granting such substitution.

Two subclasses are certified as to:

   (1) the claims for conversion (the "Conversion Class"), which
       is defined as:

       Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has
       paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties
       under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM")
       produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose
       lease or leases do not contain language expressly
       authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding
       the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating,
       compression, dehydration, processing, and/or
       transportation when calculating royalty payments,
       according to business records maintained by EQT.

       The Conversion Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the federal
       government, (c) any person who serves as a judge in this
       civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person who
       operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person who
       holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well operated
       by EQT in Virginia.

   (2) the claims for breach of contract (the "Breach of Contract
       Class"), which is defined as:

       Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has
       paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties
       under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM")
       produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose
       lease or leases do not contain language expressly
       authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding
       the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating,
       compression, dehydration, processing, and/or
       transportation when calculating royalty payments, and
       whose lease or leases are identical "Type A" leases as
       categorized by the plaintiff's expert, Alyce Hoge,
       according to business records maintained by EQT.

       The Breach of Contract Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the
       federal government, (c) any person who serves as a judge
       in this civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person
       who operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person
       who holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well
       operated by EQT in Virginia.

Eva Mae Adkins is appointed as the Conversion Class
representative.  The Breach of Contract Class representative is to
be determined following the filing of the appropriate motion and
entry of corresponding order.

These law firms are appointed jointly as counsel for both
subclasses: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Daniel Coker
Horton & Bell, P.A.; Glubiak Law Office; Neal & Harwell, PLC; Law
Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC; Barrett Law Group, P.A.; and
The White Law Office.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0ZCRtIU6


EQT PRODUCTION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Kiser" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James P. Jones denied the renewed motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit titled JULIE A. KISER, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT
PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:11-cv-00031-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jLQnwH5Q


EXAR CORP: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a boutique securities class action firm
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Exar Corporation ("Exar" or "the Company") (EXAR)
and its Board of Directors for potential securities laws
violations and/or breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with
the sale of the Company to MaxLinear, Inc. ("MaxLinear"). The
Company's stockholders will only receive $13 in cash for each Exar
share they own.

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether Exar and its Board of
Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to conduct a
fair process 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction
undervalues the Company by and 3) failing to disclose all material
financial information in connection with the tender offer set to
expire on May 11, 2017.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers
have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.

If you own common stock in Exar and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/  or contact
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.


FAMILY COUNSELING: Faces "Coons" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Coons, Plaintiff, against Family Counseling Center of
Keene, N.Y., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00439-TJM-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., April 19, 2017), was filed pursuant to the collective
action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff
alleges that throughout her employment, the Defendant required her
to work in excess of 40 hours per week on an almost weekly basis
but was not paid what she is legally entitled to.  The case was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendant provides paid-for services as a licensed mental
health care provider.  Coons worked for Family Counseling as a
Domestic Violence Residential Advocate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kelly A. Magnuson
     Nicholas A. Devyatkin, Esq.
     TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC
     441 New Karner Road
     Albany, NY 12205
     Phone: 518 218 7100
     Fax: 518 218 0496


FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces "Hickman" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance
Company, Inc. The case is titled as Nicole Hickman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02990 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 20, 2017).

Farmers Insurance provides auto, home, and commercial insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: "Green" Sues Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Green, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. BC658212 (Cal. Super., April 18, 2017), seeks statutory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
himself and injunctive relief under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff is a T5/6 quadriplegic that requires a wheelchair to
move about. Defendant is a plumbing wholesaler in North America
and a major distributor of HVAC equipment, waterworks and fire
protection products and industrial pipes, valves and fittings.
Green alleges that their stores do not have adequate parking
spaces and specially equipped restrooms for the disabled. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (877) 534-2590
     Facsimile: (310)247-0160


FIBERCARE INC: "Vanosdall" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Chris Vanosdall, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Fibercare, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-01219-RHK-KMM (D. Minn., April 18,
2017), the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, seeks relief on a collective basis,
challenging Defendant's practice of failing to accurately pay its
employees overtime premiums as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fibercare, Inc. is a national market leader providing deep-
cleaning services to the hotel/motel/resorts industry.  Plaintiff
Chris Vanosdall worked for Defendant as a "Crew Manager." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Cody, Esq.
     TARSHISH CODY, PLC
     6337 Penn Avenue South
     Richfield, MN 55423
     Phone: (952) 361-5556
     Fax: (952) 361-5559
     E-mail: scody@attorneysinmn.com


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Continues to Defend Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it
continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit
in Pennsylvania.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The
plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs
who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages
under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act.

First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to oppose class certification.  The Bank
has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off
and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as
representatives of the putative class.

The Company says all current litigation matters, including this
action, are believed to be within the range of reasonably possible
losses for such matters in the aggregate.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation is a financial holding
company that is headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.  The
Company provides a diversified array of consumer and commercial
banking services through its bank subsidiary, First Commonwealth
Bank.  The Company also provides trust and wealth management
services and offers insurance products through FCB and the
Company's other operating subsidiaries.


FOLLETT HIGHER: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Roy, writing for Washington, reports that NYU is in talks
with Follett Higher Education Group, a campus textbook retailer,
to have the company take over the NYU Bookstore's operations
effective summer 2017, according to Assistant Vice President for
Campus Services Owen Moore.

Mr. Moore said that the new partnership between the university and
Follett Higher Education is part of NYU's affordability
initiative.  Mr. Moore also said that this specific action would
contribute to its goal of reducing the prices of course materials
by 50 percent over the course of the next two years.

"NYU chose Follett because of the firm's demonstrated ability to
provide essential course materials and products at the best price
for students," Mr. Moore said in an email to WSN.  "Follett also
has at its disposal a robust technological platform with a wide
variety of user-friendly online software and IT resources for
faculty and instructors."

Mr. Moore said that the partnership will allow the university
bookstore to offer books for prices that are 15 percent lower than
standard industry prices.  It will also offer alternative options
to textbooks, like rentals and ebooks, so that students can save
an additional 25 to 70 percent off the price of a new textbook.
Additionally, the partnership with Follett will provide a price
match program that allows for more buyback opportunities.

Mr. Moore also said that under Follett, NYU's pay rate for student
employees and preference for student employment over outside
employment will still be honored.

"Follett Higher Education Group's commitment to continuity of
employment for current NYU employees -- honoring salary [and]
years of service [is important]," Mr. Moore said.  "We are still
in the early stages of this process, and terms have not yet been
finalized."

A bookstore employee who works in the general merchandise
department of the bookstore and wished to remain anonymous said
that bookstore employees received an email from Mr. Moore in early
April informing them of Follett's potential takeover and that
their jobs would still remain intact.

However, even with this assurance of employment, some bookstore
employees are concerned about Follet's takeover of its operations.
The anonymous source said that she and her union, UCATS Local
3882, don't believe that Follett would actually provide better
prices on textbooks.

"We would like to remain in our jobs, and we would actually like
to remain in our union [as] employees of NYU," the source said.
"NYU, as far as I know, is claiming that Follett would be
beneficial to the students in terms of student customers [in]
getting them better prices on textbooks, but I'm not necessarily
sure that's true."

The union researched Follett and found that the company runs
primarily on part-time and temporary employees, has had massive
layoffs and has overcharged students in the past, according to an
email sent to union members by its organizer.  Additionally, the
group found that some universities have taken their bookstores
back after Follett promises did not hold true.

In a meeting on April 21 between NYU personnel and members of
UCATS Local 3882, the union presented its findings to the
university. According to an email to union members, the university
personnel said that there was no information to be shared and that
no contract has been signed with Follett yet.

The university personnel did not answer questions regarding which
options were being considered and the logistics of the decision-
making process, but said that they would listen to the union's
concerns.

The anonymous source was especially concerned over a recent
lawsuit involving Follett Higher Education.  The group settled a
$3.5 million class-action suit over its misuse of phone numbers
that customers gave them.  The group illegally started contacting
these customers using automatic dialers.

"I think what's important is that this whole move is based on
what's better for students, when again, these people settled the
$3.5 million class action," the source said.  "I don't know that
that's better for students, that they would have had to admit to
that -- the fact that they're settling for the whole lot -- about
misusing students' information [and] customers' information."

It is unknown whether or not this issue was brought up during the
meeting between NYU representatives and the union.  However, the
source is still concerned over the truth of the university's
claims about Follett, especially in terms of its promise of
continued employment.

"That's premature, as opposed to another email that would have
said not much is known period -- because we are in talks, not much
is known," the source said.  "I think that to go ahead and say,
well, employees generally get to keep their benefits and their
salaries -- I know that I wouldn't say something like that if I
didn't know [if] that would hold true."

The source believes that the school's vagueness is not fair to its
employees and that the university should keep in mind that the
bookstore employees are essential to the school's operations.
"This move [is] full of hubris because they're doing this, and
meanwhile we're the same group of workers they're going to be
counting on to handle graduation," the source said.  "Along with
the beginning of the year, the end of the year is the busiest time
of the year.  So this same group of workers whose jobs they're
jeporadizing [by] keeping us in the dark are the same group of
people they're going to be counting on come graduation."
A version of this article appeared in the Monday April 24 print
edition.


FOX: Judge Allows Teen Inmates' Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Hello Beautiful's Kellee Terrell, writing for The Hollywood
Reporter, reports that an Illinois judge is allowing a group of
teens to sue Empire for filming the show in the juvenile prison
they reside in.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, U.S. District Judge Amy J.
St. Eve refused to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit against
the hit Fox drama for the taping of the show in the summer of
2015.  Two inmates brought a 12-count complaint in August 2016 on
behalf of themselves and other young inmates. They alleged that
officials at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center
placed the inmates on lockdown to accommodate the taping of the
Taraji P. Henson and Terrance Howard show.

The lawsuit also alleges:

   -- That inmates were ordered into "pod" areas and sat there for
days.

   -- They were deprived of their daily education, recreational
activities, the library, the infirmary and the chapel.

   -- Sick requests were ignored and family visits were
eliminated.

   -- Those with diagnosed mental disorders were psychologically
damaged by the lockdowns.

   -- Inmates' due process rights were routinely denied by the
lockdowns.

Judge Eve wrote that the plaintiffs have "plausibly stated" a
claim and "in fact, [the] plaintiffs' allegations regarding the
denial of access to the infirmary and the rejected sick-call
requests -- alone -- state an actionable claim."  However, she
isn't quite sure that the defendants have a case against the Fox
network per se, but she will still allow them to name the company
in their lawsuit, particularly in regard to a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, THR noted.

Between the sexual harassment lawsuits at Fox News and this
particular lawsuit, parent company 20th Century Fox is not having
a good week.


FULLETT ROSENLUND: Hearing for Class Certification Set for May 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the
lawsuit styled Joy Ellison, the Plaintiff, v. Fullett Rosenlund
Anderson P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02236 (N.D. Ill.),
setting status hearing for class certification on May 3, 2017 at
9:00 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 30, 2017,
Plaintiff intends to serve Defendant on or before April 3, 2017.
The Court will consider the class motion filed and Defendant will
be barred from filing a motion to strike reinstatement of said
motion after service is effectuated.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DH4zR5am


GARDEN OF LIGHT: "Callanan" Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sandra Callanan, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly-situated current citizens of
Missouri, the Plaintiff, v. Garden of Light, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1622-CC11313, was removed on April 24, 2017 from the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-01377-HEA to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey

Garden of Light was founded in 1994. The company's line of
business includes manufacturing cereal breakfast foods and related
preparations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
          8816 Manchester Road
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258 0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Muehlberger, Esq.
          SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474 6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421 5547
          E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com


GLOBAL TEL LINK: Bid to Approve "Lee" Suit Deal Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, has taken under submission the motion
to certify class and for preliminary approval of settlement in the
lawsuit captioned Alice Lee v. Global Tel Link Corporation, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02495-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court hears from
counsel as stated on the record.  The matter will then be under
submission and a ruling will be issued.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dohCf3gz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric Alexander Lester, Esq.
          PATRIC LESTER & ASSOCIATES
          5694 Mission Center Road #358
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665-3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
          E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (866) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7816
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com


GOOD FEET: "Vasquez" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER VASQUEZ and SERENA RIDINO, Individually and On Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, V. GOOD FEET
WORLDWIDE, LLC, and SUPPORTS FOR SOLE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00343-DAE (W.D. Tex., April 18, 2017), alleges that
Defendants' Sales Consultants and Sales Managers routinely work
more than 40 hours in a workweek but are not paid an overtime
premium for any of their overtime hours as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants manufacture and market pre-fabricated arch supports and
foot cushions and own and operate arch support and foot cushion
retail stores nationwide.  Plaintiff worked as a Sales Consultant
for Good Feet. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
     Hans W. Lodge, Esq.
     BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
     100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 252-3570
     Fax: (612) 252-3571
     E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
             hlodge@baillonthome.com

        - and -

     GLEN D. MANGUM
     315 E. Euclid
     San Antonio, TX 78212-4709
     Phone: (210) 227-3666
     Fax: (210) 595-8340
     E-mail: gmangum@sbcglobal.net


GREATER SUDBURY, ON: Could Face Class Action for Firehall Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Leeson at The Sudbury Star reports Brenda Salo lives on a farm
in Beaver Lake, in a log home more than 100 years old.  She's
proud of the place, and the fact she still takes 4,000 bales of
hay from her fields each summer. When she passes away, she plans
to leave property to her daughter.

But she'll be concerned for her family's safety, as well as that
of their neighbours, if the City of Greater Sudbury votes to
implement a first services optimization plan that would close
several stations, including the volunteer station at Beaver Lake.

"I will have no fire insurance if they close this department,"
Salo said. "I won't even be able to buy it. Plus, when they close
this department and amalgamate it with all the other departments,
they're going to up our taxes $200 to $300 a year, so I'm going to
be paying more taxes and have less. I probably won't even have a
mortgage, because if you don't have fire insurance, you're going
to default on your mortgage, and that goes for all of the young
families who have bought here, moved here because of Totten Mine.
All of our new residents are going to be at risk."

They may live on the outskirts of the city, but Beaver Lake
residents made it clear on April 22 they aren't just voices in the
wilderness. More than 100 people gathered outside the local
station in Worthington, during an event organized by Salo and
fellow members of the Beaver Lake firehall committee to discuss
contingencies should council vote to approve the new fire services
optimization plan and close the hall, a move they believe will
increase response times and put residents and their properties at
greater risk.

Those contingencies include a class-action lawsuit, and many who
attended signed a petition to support such an action if the
station is closed and residents suffer economic harm as a result.

"With the closure of this fire station, the response times would
be indeterminate," said Dino Titon, a member of the firehall
committee. "The proposed plan would have volunteers servicing this
area out of the Whitefish station, along with a proposed composite
station out of Lively, so you can imagine the response times that
we'd have. It would be over 20 to 30 minutes, at best."

They're not just concerned for local residents, he said, but also
travellers on Highway 17, which runs through Beaver Lake. For
local people, he expects insurance to become more expensive or
even impossible to get for those outside a 13-kilometre threshold
from the Whitefish station, and for property values to plummet, as
well.

The community may have no choice other than to proceed with a
lawsuit against the city, Titon said.

"Make no bones about it -- they're going to close this station as
part of that plan, so we have to be prepared for a contingency,"
he said.

Jules Lalonde, another member of the eight-person committee,
believes the public hasn't had enough opportunity to give input on
the plan, even at the series of information sessions held
throughout the city -- "dog-and-pony shows," as he calls them. He
also disputes some of the information in the city's report on the
plan, released this past week.

"We want to remind council they have a fiduciary obligation over
decisions they make and plans that they approve," Lalonde told the
gathering. "We elect council, council appoints administrative
staff, that's the way it works, and if they ask administrative
staff to bring together positions, they should be able to rely on
that information. I have serious doubts about the reliability of
that information and I challenge its positions.

"It's not just 13 kilometres of a few farms. It's a community, and
we're looking for your support as a community to help guide us, to
make sure council hears us."

He encouraged residents to call and email their councillors,
including Ward 2's Michael Vagnini, who spoke in support of the
Beaver Lake group.

Salo hopes they'll also attend the meeting on April 26.

"What we need city hall to know is we're not allowing this
department to be closed," she said. "We've done bigger and better
before -- we bought education from Espanola when the amalgamation
took place, we fought for the Lively high school, because they
wanted to take our only high school away, and we fought for the
Whitefish Public School, the only public school for the area. Now
we're going to fight for this fire department. Our people are
going to rally together, we're going to have the volunteers, and
we're not giving up."
Statement from Mayor

Greater Sudbury mayor Brian Bigger released the following
statement with regard to the fire optimization plan:

As Mayor of the City of Greater Sudbury and the head of council, I
wish to clarify the process that is being undertaken for the Fire
and Paramedic Services proposed optimization plan.

A review of the city's ability to respond to emergencies, from a
fire and paramedic perspective, was conducted by staff based on a
request from council. The results of the analysis are scheduled to
be presented to council at a special council Meeting, April 26,
2017 at 4 p.m.

No decisions have yet been made by council. At the meeting,
council will consider the report and we will debate a series of
staff recommendations.

None of the staff recommendations, if approved by council, would
produce immediate changes. In fact, the plan proposes that key
recommendations would be brought forward for council's
consideration each year as part of the annual budget process.

It is premature to speculate on the outcomes of the
recommendations that will be debated by council.

Residents are invited to attend the Council meeting, held in
council chamber at 200 Brady St., Sudbury. The meeting will also
be livestreamed at https://livestream.com/greatersudbury.  [GN]


HELIX ENERGY: Faces "Hugee" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Hugee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01099 (S.D. Tex, April 10, 2017) is
brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Hugee was employed by Defendant Helix.  Helix provides
subsea construction, inspection, maintenance, repair and salvage
services to customers in the offshore natural gas and oil
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Melissa Moore, Esq.
   Curt Hesse, Esq.
   Moore & Associates
   Lyric Center
   440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (713) 222-6775
   Fax: (713) 222-6739


HH-ENTERTAINMENT INC: Faces "Whitworth" Lawsuit Under FACTA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WADE GLENN WHITWORTH, JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HH-ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
d/b/a HUSTLER HOLLYWOOD, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 9:17-cv-80487-KAM (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2017), seeks to put an
end to Defendant's alleged conduct of willfully, knowingly, and/or
recklessly disclosing the personal and private financial
information of thousands of consumers throughout the country in
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant is an apparel and accessories retailer with over twenty
locations around the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
     Phone: 954.400.4713

        - and -

     Adam M. Ludwin, Esq.
     LUDWIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1732 S. Congress Ave., Suite 326
     Lake Worth, FL 33461
     Phone: 561-613-7392
     Email: adam@ludwinlaw.com

        - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


IDE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that when
Michele Petry found out that she wouldn't be hired for a nursing
job last March, she was shocked to find out why.

The employment background report, conducted by Indianapolis-based
IDE Management, revealed that Ms. Petry had multiple felonies
including a felony conviction for drug paraphernalia and for theft
on her record.

The Booneville woman, who boasts a squeaky clean criminal record,
insists the report is wrong.  And after asking her prospective
employer to see her background report, Ms. Petry was informed that
she would not be hired.

That led Ms. Petry to file a class action lawsuit against IDE
Management in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Evansville Division.

She says the company, which does business as Cathedral Health Care
Centers, denied her a job based on allegedly inaccurate results of
a background check without giving her a proper chance to correct
those results and thus violated required provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which governs background checks in the U.S.

The issue of inaccurate employment screenings is wide-ranging when
93 percent of employers conduct criminal background checks on job
applicants, according to a survey by the Society for Human
Resource Management.

And research conducted by the National Consumer Law Center states
that criminal background screening companies routinely mismatch
people, omit crucial information about a case, reveal sealed or
expunged information, and/or misclassify offenses.

In this case, Ms. Petry submitted to a background check with
Indianapolis-based IDE Management, after applying for a position
as a nurse with the company in March.

She was called in for an interview, and was informed by IDE that
it would extend an offer of employment if she passed a background
screening, according to court documents.

After receiving and reviewing the consumer report, obtained from
an unknown consumer reporting agency, IDE decided not to hire
Ms. Petry based on the report, court documents state.

After the IDE told Ms. Petry they were not going to hire her,
Ms. Petry asked why.

"Defendant informed Plaintiff that the background report that it
had obtained revealed multiple felonies including a felony
conviction for drug paraphernalia and for theft."  The problem was
that Ms. Petry has not been convicted of any felonies.

After requesting a copy of the report, and the company refused,
Ms. Petry filed a lawsuit.

As part of her claim, Ms. Petry says IDE negligently and willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it failed to provide
her with a copy of the report and a description in writing of the
rights of Ms. Petry under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau are required to ensure that reporting companies obey the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires them to strive for
accuracy.

The law requires that these companies furnish reports drawn from
public records for employment purposes to notify the people named
in the reports in a timely manner, so any inaccuracies in the data
can be challenged and that the public record is complete and up to
date.

There are cases in the past where the CFPB have fined consumer
reporting agencies for reporting inaccurate information about job
applicants.

In 2015, the CFPB fined General Information Services and its
affiliate, e-Background-checks.com Inc. when the companies
included civil suit and civil judgment information from more than
seven years ago in reports they provided to prospective employers.

The agency has ordered the companies to correct their practices,
pay a $2.5 million civil penalty and $10.5 million in relief to
they victims.  The CFPB said the reports potentially harmed
applicants' employment eligibility and reputations.

And IDE is not the only company facing a class action lawsuit
regarding inaccurate employment background reporting results.

In January, Starbucks Corp. was faced with a class action lawsuit
filed by a Colorado man who claims he was denied a job based on an
allegedly inaccurate background check and is suing the coffeehouse
chain for violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

David M. Marco, a Chicago attorney represents Ms. Petry.  He told
IndyStar that "the company is doing a very poor job of matching
people."

States are finding ways to cure the problems of inaccurate
background screening results.

The California's Fair Employment and Housing Council finalized new
regulations that limit state employers' ability to use criminal
history when making employment decisions.

The regulations, borrowing heavily from the EEOC's 2012 Guidance,
will be effective July 1, 2017.

The new regulations prohibit an employer from considering a job
applicant's or employee's criminal history in making an employment
decision if doing so would result in an adverse impact on
individuals within a protected class, such as gender, race, and
national origin.

In order to succeed on a claim under these regulations, a job
applicant must first prove that an employer's background screening
policy actually has an adverse impact on a protected class.

A representative from IDE declined to comment.

The healthcare management company was founded in 1997 in
Indianapolis.

IMG operates 24 skilled nursing and assisted living facilities in
three states, employing 2,200 workers and has grown through
consistent acquisitions, according to its website.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Briefing on Certification Bid Due on May 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Additional briefing on class certification and conclusion of fact
discovery in the securities litigation pending in New Jersey is
due on May 12, 2017, InterCloud Systems, Inc., said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
14, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re
InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982
(D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against our company, our Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup
and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor
relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and
investment advisor. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf
of a class of certain persons who purchased our common stock
between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged
violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in
connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were
intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to
cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of our
common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue
statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts
necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint
also alleged that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of
the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees,
and other unspecified litigation costs."

"On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January
2015 adding additional third-party defendants. We filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015.
We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. Our motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on October
29, 2015."

"On June 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, to which we filed a reply in opposition on August
2, 2016. The court held oral argument on the class certification
motion on January 13, 2017, and on February 16, 2017, the parties
entered into a stipulation, which was approved by the court on
February 23, 2017, that sets forth a schedule for expert reports,
additional briefing on class certification and conclusion of fact
discovery on May 12, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery and additional class certification briefing."

InterCloud Systems, Inc. is a provider of networking orchestration
and automation, for the Internet of things, software-defined
networking and network function virtualization environments to the
telecommunications service provider (carrier) and corporate
enterprise markets.  The Company's managed services solutions
offer enterprise and service-provider customers the opportunity to
adopt an operational expense model by outsourcing cloud deployment
and management to the Company rather than the capital expense
model that has dominated in recent decades in IT infrastructure
management.


INTERCONTINENTAL: Guest Credit Card Hack May Spark Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Smedley, writing for PPP Focus, reports that IHG said it was
made aware of the hack after payment card networks identified
patterns of unauthorized charges following legitimate use at
locations of the hotel chain.

The company hired a cyber security firm, which found evidence of
malware created to access payment card data from cards used at the
hotels' front desks.  The card number was taken, along with the
expiration dote and security number of each of these cards.

IHG has set up a drop-down menu-based system where you must select
individual states and cities to see if your hotel was affected.

In its statement, IHG says that the malware infected systems at
front desks, and that related infections persisted from September
29, 2016, until December 29, 2016.

Investigators Eradicated Point-of-Sale Malware by March, IHG
SaysMathew J. Schwartz (euroinfosec).  April 19, 2017 Affected
hotels included such IHG brands as Crowne Plaza, Intercontinental,
Kimpton and Holiday Inn.  Credit card data may have been stolen
from two Lee County hotels, their parent company warned.

IHG locations that had implemented the company's secure payment
system before September 29 were not affected.

IHG first told customers that only a "dozen" U.S. locations had
been infected with credit card-stealing malware back in February,
but has now come out and admitted that the attack was a lot worse
than it first revealed.

Thousands of SC residents might have had their credit card numbers
swept up previous year in a major data breach at one of the
nation's largest hotel chains.

According to security expert Brian Krebs, "IHG has been offering
its franchised properties a free examination by an outside
computer forensic team".

The company hired a cyber security company to look into payment
card processing systems.  The company said law enforcement also
has been notified of the breach.  Card breaches also have hit
hospitality chains Starwood Hotels and Hyatt.  The US is, after
all, the land of the lawsuit, and lawyers are no doubt salivating
at the chance to launch a class action suit against some of the
best-known hotel brands in the country.

Properties that may have been affected are located in Canada, the
US and Puerto Rico.


INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: "Caraballo" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Candy Caraballo, and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v.
International Finance Bank, a Florida Profit Corporation, and
Jose E. Cueto, Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 17-005902-
CA-01, was removed 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-21476-UU to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

International Finance is a Florida State Chartered FDIC-insured
Commercial Bank, it was organized in Miami in 1982 by a group of
local businessmen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brooks Anderson, Esq.
          Rodolfo Gomez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 345 7504
          Facsimile: (561) 345 7501
          E-mail: banderson@fordharrison.com
                  rgomez@fordharrison.com


INTERNATIONAL HAIR: "Doucet" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Izabelle J. Doucet, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
International Hair Institute, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company; Keranique, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00009996-
CU-MC-CTL, was removed on April 24, 2017 from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00823-LAB-KSC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan
Burns.

International Hair is a beauty shop located in Jersey City, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lee S Brenner, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712 6100
          Facsimile: (310) 712 6126
          E-mail: lbrenner@kelleydrye.com


INTERNATIONAL WAREHOUSE: "Barahona" Seeks Min., Spread of Hrs. Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Barahona, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Erik Rios and Melbi Morales, individually, Plaintiffs,
v. International Warehouse Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
603305/2017, (N.Y. Sup., April 18, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages, unlawfully deducted wages,
statutory damages for Defendants' violations of the notice and
recordkeeping requirements, pre-judgment interest and post-
judgment interest, appropriate equitable and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and all such other
injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to New York Labor Laws.

Defendant owns and operates warehouses at 290 Spagnoli Road,
Melville, New York, where Plaintiffs were employed as warehouse
personnel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      Tana Forrester, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100

            - and -

      Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
      MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
      92-10 Roosevelt Avenue
      Jackson Heights, NY 11372
      Telephone: (718) 565-8500


JOE'S BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that an employee
has filed a class-action lawsuit against Joe's Blue Market Corp.
and Terry Thompson, a market/kitchen and its owner, citing alleged
unpaid wages and violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Francisco Gonzalez filed a complaint on behalf of others similarly
situated on April 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the defendants alleging that they
failed to pay fair wages to the plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
regularly worked for more than 40 hours per week without being
paid overtime wages. The plaintiff holds Joe's Blue Market and
Thompson responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to
pay one-and-one-half salary to the plaintiff for working more than
40 hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks payment of all
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
interest and all proper relief.  He is represented by Keith M.
Stern and Hazel Solis Rojas of the Law Office of Keith M. Stern
P.A. in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 1:17-cv-21331-RNS


KATY FURNITURE: "Slaughter" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RASHAAD SLAUGHTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. KATY FURNITURE, LLC AND AMIR
MAHDEJIAN, INDIVIDUALLY, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:17-cv-01210
(S.D. Tex., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation
and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as
reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees, along with pre- and post-judgment
interest at the highest rate allowed by law.

The case is an action for failure to pay overtime compensation
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants
sell furniture to the public in Katy, Texas. Rashaad Slaughter was
employed by Defendants as a non-exempt driver's assistant from
March 2015 through February 2017. Mr. Slaughter's primary duties
were to load and deliver furniture within the State of Texas. Mr.
Slaughter consistently worked more than forty hours per week, but
was never paid an overtime premium for any hours worked over
forty.

The Defendant offers showroom stocking discount modern and
traditional furnishings, beds, rugs and home accents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
          1800 Guadalupe Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (512) 340 4051
          E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


KERYX BIOPHARMA: "King" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard B. King, Jr., Tim Karth,
and Abraham Kiswani, the Plaintiffs, v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., Gregory P Madison, Scott A Holmes, the Defendants, and
Richard J. Erickson, Movant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06233 (filed Aug. 2,
2016), was transferred on April 18, 2017 from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
10653-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Denise J. Casper.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Keryx securities between February 25, 2016, and August 1,
2016, inclusive (Class Period), against the Defendants, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act).

Keryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on marketing
therapies for patients with renal disease. The Company's product,
Auryxia (ferric citrate), also known as Riona in Japan and Fexeric
in Europe, is an oral, absorbable iron-based compound, that
received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in September 2014 for the control of serum
phosphorus levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on
dialysis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          David Frank Eisenhaue Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (888) 529 1108
          Facsimile: (646) 661 5881
          E-mail: dtejtel@fotpllc.com

The Movant Richard J. Erickson is represented by:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com


KERYX BIOPHARMA: "Jackson" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Terrell Jackson, Tim Karth, and
Abraham Kiswani, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., Gregory P Madison, and Scott A Holmes, the Defendants, and
Mike and Marna Izzo, and Richard J. Erickson, Movants, Case No.
1:16-cv-06131 (filed Aug. 2, 2016), was transferred on April 18,
2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, to U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-10655-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Keryx securities between February 25, 2016, and August 1,
2016, inclusive (Class Period), against the Defendants, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act).

Keryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on marketing
therapies for patients with renal disease. The Company's product,
Auryxia (ferric citrate), also known as Riona in Japan and Fexeric
in Europe, is an oral, absorbable iron-based compound, that
received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in September 2014 for the control of serum
phosphorus levels in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on
dialysis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN
          HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100

               - and -

          David Frank Eisenhaue Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (888) 529 1108
          Facsimile: (646) 661 5881
          E-mail: dtejtel@fotpllc.com

Movant Mike and Marna Izzo is represented by:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

Movant Richard J. Erickson is represented by:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com


KEY ENERGY: Settles Labor Class Action for $3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Deb Hipp, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
Key Energy Services California has agreed to a $3 million
settlement on a class action for California labor law violations.

The class action consolidated two lawsuits originally filed nearly
four years ago by former Key Energy employees.

Paul Grillo, a non-exempt "floor hand" on a Key Energy onshore oil
rig, filed a lawsuit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in
Nov. 2013, alleging overtime violations against Texas-based Key
Energy.  Manuel Zaragoza, who also worked as a floor hand at
various onshore oil rigs, filed a separate lawsuit against Key
Energy in June 2013 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The plaintiffs claimed that the company violated California Labor
Law, failed to provide meal breaks to employees and refused to pay
employees for required work that went over their allotted hours.

In 2016, the plaintiffs won class certification for a class
covering California-based Key Energy workers for a period going
back to 2009.  The current motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement, filed April 18, 2017, also asks for
approval of a modified class with eight subclasses.

The parties reached the settlement agreement through mediation,
according to court documents.

The class action plaintiffs and their counsel "maintained a strong
belief in the underlying merits of the claims," according to the
proposed settlement.  "They also acknowledge the significant
challenges posed by continued litigation through trial.
Accordingly, when balanced against the risk and expense of
continued litigation, the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable," wrote the plaintiff attorneys.

The proposed settlement directs Key Energy to pay $3 million,
allocating $1.79 million to the employees after fees and other
costs.  The projected class includes 1,815 employees with each
worker receiving around $985.

Payment would be based on the number of pay periods an employee
worked between June 2009 and February 2017.Grillo and Zaragoza
would each be awarded $10,000 in incentive payments for filing the
lawsuit.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
is scheduled for May 22, 2017.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Classes Certified in Flushable Wipes Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York entered a memorandum & order
certifying six class actions:

   (1) D. JOSEPH KURTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
       Similarly Situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION & COSTCO
       WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:14-cv-01142-JBW-RML;

   (2) ANTHONY BELFIORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
       Similarly Situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
       Case No. 14-CV-4090;

   (3) DESMOND R. ARMSTRONG, Individually and on Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
       & NICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 15-CV-2909;

   (4) GLADYS HONIGMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
       Similarly Situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION,
       Case No. 15-CV-2910;

   (5) STEVEN and ELLEN PALMER, Individually and on Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. CVS HEALTH & NICE-PAK
       PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 15-CV-2928; and

   (6)  EUGENE and VICTORIA RICHARD, Individually and on Behalf
       of All Others Similarly Situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
       & ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES, Case No. 15-CV-4579.

In the six separate but related consumer class actions, consumers
sue vendors and manufacturers of "flushable toilet wipes."  The
consumers contend that the products are not flushable -- they clog
household plumbing.  The consumers, who purchased moist toilet
wipes sold by retailer defendants, produced by manufacturer
defendants, and marked "flushable."  Alleged in all the cases are
defects in labeling.  The consumers seek money damages and
injunctive relief against manufacturers and retailers of these
moist wipes, which are labeled and advertised as "flushable" but
alleged not to be "flushable."

Judge Weinstein appoints Wolf Popper, Mr. Belfiore's counsel, as
class counsel for the class brought by Mr. Belfiore; and Robbins
Geller, Mr. Kurtz's counsel, as class counsel for the two classes
brought by Mr. Kurtz.

Judge Weinstein notes that Plaintiff Kurtz may not be a perfect
representative of the class, but the law does not require him to
be; he is more than adequate.  If need be, the Court can modify
this order to modify the class, replace Mr. Kurtz as a class
representative, and replace counsel, Judge Weinstein says.

In the Belfiore action (14-CV-4090), a class is certified as: "All
persons and entities who purchased Charmin Freshmates in the State
of New York between May 23, 2011 and March 1, 2017."

In the Kurtz action (14-CV-1142), the following two classes are
certified: (1) "All persons and entities who purchased Kimberly-
Clark Flushable Products in the State of New York between February
21, 2008 and March 1, 2017"; and (2) "All persons and entities who
purchased Kirkland Signature Flushable Wipes in the State of New
York between July 1, 2011 and March 1, 2017."  Certification of a
national class action is denied.  Should certification of both
classes be affirmed on appeal, the Court will consider requiring
separate plaintiffs and separate counsel for each of the classes.
For purposes of an interlocutory appeal, Judge Weinstein opines
that there is no conflict between the two classes represented by
Mr. Kurtz and his counsel.

Judge Weinstein also rules that an appeal under Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is recommended before the parties
and the Court engage in further expensive, time consuming
discovery and address other matters, such as notice, new class
representatives, and new counsel.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pl2aEcor

Plaintiff Anthony Belfiore is represented by:

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          Michele Fried Raphael, Esq.
          Roy Herrera, Esq.
          Sean Michael Zaroogian, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Robert Scott Plosky, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: llevy@wolfpopper.com
                  MRaphael@wolfpopper.com
                  rherrera@wolfpopper.com
                  szaroogian@wolfpopper.com
                  minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
                  Rplosky@wolfpopper.com

Plaintiffs D. Joseph Kurtz and Steven and Ellen Palmer are
represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff D. Joseph Kurtz is represented by:

          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, 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: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiffs Desmond R. Armstrong and Gladys Honigman are
represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant The Procter and Gamble Company is represented by:

          Emily Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Claire Catalano Dean, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (212) 841-1078
          Facsimile: (646) 441-9078
          E-mail: ccatalano@cov.com

               - and -

          Cortlin Lannin, Esq.
          Sonya Winner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: clannin@cov.com
                  swinner@cov.com

Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation is represented by:

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          Kara L. McCall, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
                  kmccall@sidley.com

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented by:

          James M. Bergin, Esq.
          Adam James Hunt, Esq.
          Kayvan Betteridge Sadeghi, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-4341
          E-mail: jbergin@mofo.com
                  adamhunt@mofo.com
                  ksadeghi@mofo.com

               - and -

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com

Defendants Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. are
represented by:

          James M. Bergin, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-4341
          E-mail: jbergin@mofo.com


LEWIS & BRACKIN: Faces "Lait" Suit in M.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lewis, Brackin,
Flowers, Johnson & Sawyer. The case is entitled as Michael Lait,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lewis, Brackin, Flowers, Johnson & Sawyer, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00249-SRW (M.D. Ala., Apr. 24, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan Russ Walker.

Lewis, Brackin, Flowers, Johnson & Sawyer is a firm serving Dothan
in general practice, trial practice and probate cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          10 N. Section No. 122
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 928 1423
          E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com


LIFESHARE BLOOD: Certification of Class Sought in "Trisler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled NATASHA TRISLER, ET AL. v.
LIFESHARE BLOOD CENTERS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00421-DDD-JPM (W.D.
La.), move for certification of class and approval of notice and
consent form.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to direct Lifeshare to present the
names, addresses and dates of employment of potential class
members no later than seven days after the Court's ruling on the
Motion.  They also ask that the Court permit the notice period to
last for 90 days following their receipt of the sought
information, and that the Motion be heard by the Court with
expedited consideration.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rRrBGPt7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David L. Morgan, Esq.
          Kathleen T. Deanda, Esq.
          Brittanie D. Wagnon, Esq.
          STOCKWELL, SIEVERT, VICCELLIO, CLEMENTS
          & SHADDOCK, L.L.P.
          127 West Broad Street, St. 400 (70601)
          P.O. Box 2900
          Lake Charles, LA 70602
          Telephone: (337) 436-9491
          E-mail: dlmorgan@ssvcs.com
                  ktdeanda@ssvcs.com
                  bdwagnon@ssvcs.com


LIFELOCK INC: Investors Ask 9th Circuit to Revive Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles at Law360 reports Lifelock Inc. investors urged a
Ninth Circuit panel on April 21 to revive their putative
securities class action alleging the identity theft protection
company lied about its compliance with a Federal Trade Commission
false advertising order, arguing a lower court judge wrongly
inferred facts when she found its statements weren't misleading.

Class counsel Patrick Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP told the panel at
the hearing that the dismissed complaint was replete with
testimony from nine confidential witnesses and from related
whistleblower and wrongful termination suits. All that evidence
suggested that even after Lifelock reached a USD12 million
settlement with the FTC over allegations the company falsely
advertised its services and failed to safeguard customer data in
2010, it continued to practice "throttling," limiting the number
of alerts sent out to customers.

Dahlstrom said U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton erred in her
interpretation of the complaint, which found that, in the context
of its entire 2013 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing,
the alleged misrepresentations weren't enough to dupe reasonable
investors into thinking the company was in full compliance with an
FTC settlement over its false advertising claims.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta asked whether the lower court had
done "fact finding" or "reasonable inferences" when it ruled that
any further breaches at Lifelock were the result of growing pains
or management problems, not willful fraud.

Dahlstrom said even the cautionary statements about possible
penalties were misleading.

"This is a company that had over its head the sword of Damocles.
It was required twice a year to file with the FTC its compliance.
During that period, we have [allegations] from insiders at the
company at the time, that they were not giving the services they
were representing to the public," he said. "You have to look at
what statements are . . . .  They're giving a warning that's for
future events. At the very time they're giving that warning,
they're in violation."

Lifelock attorney Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati PC said the company's 2013 earnings report, filed in
February of the following year, discussed a follow-up
investigation by the FTC, even though it hadn't occurred until
2014. He said the discussion of FTC compliance was not
"boilerplate," as the plaintiffs had alleged, but detailed that it
expected to receive a records request from the commission, which
would end with a landmark USD100 million settlement in 2015. He
said under the U.S. Supreme Court's Omnicare decision, cautionary
statements had to be considered along with affirmative ones.

"In Omnicare, the context of a statement of opinion matters," he
said. "So, look at that context to see whether [the judge] got it
right or not. The annual report mentions the FTC order 38 times.
It's almost like regulatory Tourette's."

Both sides were also asked about Lifelock acquiring Lemon LLC and
its secure digital wallet technology. Feldman said the technology
had already earned Payment Card Industry certification when the
deal closed, but that Lifelock later learned that the technology
wasn't compliant because it stored certain sensitive card
information that should have been re-entered by the user for each
purchase. Dahlstrom said one confidential witness testified she'd
presented a due diligence report warning of the technology's
failures before the sale, and that established the executives'
scienter.

There was also a question of the complaint's timing. Feldman said
the lead plaintiff had already sold all his stock by the time the
actionable statement was released. He also said the sale of
executive stock options didn't indicate scienter because it was
preplanned in accordance with a 10b5-1 plan.

U.S. Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta, Stephen Trott and David Faber
sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

The investors are represented by Patrick M. Dahlstrom --
pmdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- and Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com  of Pomerantz LLP, and by Jennifer Kroll
and Susan Joan Martin -- info@martinbonnet.com -- of Martin &
Bonnett PLLC.

Lifelock is represented by Boris Feldman -- bfeldman@wsgr.com --
Gideon A. Schor -- gschor@wsgr.com -- and Cheryl W. Foung --
cfoung@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and
Cynthia Ricketts of Sacks Ricketts & Case LLP.

The case is Chet Gray et al. v. Lifelock Inc. et al., case number
15-16885, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [GN]


LINEN OUTLET: "Masoud" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MASOUD, the Plaintiff, v. LINEN OUTLET and BASAAM KHALIL,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02315 (E.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation due
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the
supporting United States Department of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant
to the FLSA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated who suffered damages and continue to suffer damages as a
result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA and the applicable
state laws of the State of New York by failing to pay Plaintiff,
and all other similarly situated employees, the minimum wage, the
spread of hours, as well as their overtime hours worked based upon
their unlawful policies and practices. Defendants failed and
continue to fail to properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees for their hours worked, the spread of hours, as
well as those hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week at the statutorily required rate of pay in direct
violation of the FLSA and applicable state laws of the State o

Linen Outlet offers one-stop shop for linens, including sheets,
curtains and comforters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


LOBLAWS: Rana Plaza Victims Seek Compensation in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
April 24 marked the fourth anniversary of the horrific collapse of
the Rana Plaza garment factory building in Dhaka, Bangladesh.  The
Rana Plaza collapse is considered to be the largest industrial
disaster in history: it killed 1,130 people and left another 2,520
seriously injured.  The Rana Plaza collapsed as a result of
serious building safety defects.  Many of the injured required
amputations while others are permanently immobilized. Many of the
victims were young women and girls.

The Rana Plaza building housed several garment factories that
employed over 5,000 garment workers who produced apparel for major
Western brands, including Loblaws' Joe Fresh brand.  It is alleged
that orders for Loblaws represented 50% of all apparel made in one
of the largest garment factories in Rana Plaza which occupied the
illegally constructed top floors.  Shortly after the collapse,
Galen Weston Jr., the Executive Chairman of Loblaws Companies
Ltd., publicly acknowledged that "the top floors of the building
should never have been built".  He stated that the scope of the
audits undertaken on behalf of Loblaws at Rana Plaza did not cover
structural integrity and that "workers were exposed to
unacceptable risk".

Rana Plaza was originally constructed as a four-story building
licensed for commercial use, but doubled in size through the
allegedly illegal construction of several additional precariously
canter levered floors required to accommodate increased garment
orders from Loblaws. The ninth floor was under construction at the
time of the collapse.

The proposed class action commenced in Ontario on behalf of the
victims of the collapse and their families seeks fair compensation
from Loblaws and Bureau Veritas, the firm retained by Loblaws to
audit the Rana Plaza factories that produced Joe Fresh apparel.

The Plaintiffs allege that Loblaws assumed responsibility to the
Rana Plaza garment workers to ensure that they worked in safe and
legally operated factories.  They allege that Loblaws voluntarily
adopted Corporate Social Responsibility standards, which required
that its suppliers comply with local safety laws and regulations.
They also allege that Loblaws failed to require -- and Bureau
Veritas failed to recommend and perform -- adequate and reasonable
audits that would have detected the serious safety hazards that
resulted in the collapse of the Rana Plaza.  It is alleged that
the collapse and the harm to the garment workers were foreseeable
to both Loblaws and Bureau Veritas.

The motion for certification of the proposed class action was
heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice between April 3 and
April 10, 2017.  Loblaws continues to vigorously defend the claim,
which seeks to provide access to justice, including fair
compensation, to the victims and their families.

"This is an important suit for garment workers in developing
countries who have the right to work in safe environments that are
not a threat to their lives.  Western corporations which seek to
benefit from the low cost of labour in countries with notoriously
poor records for workplace health and safety must be held
accountable when the workers that produce their products are
exposed to unnecessary risks and are injured or die as a result of
unsafe working conditions.  Compliance with safety laws and
regulations, industry standards and best practices ensures the
health and safety of the workers in global supply chains," said
Joel P. Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- partner at Rochon
Genova LLP.  "This class action aims to reaffirm one of the
foremost policy goals of the Class Proceedings Act, to provide
access to justice to the thousands of garment workers who were
injured and to the family members of the injured and deceased"

The garment workers and their families are represented by Joel P.
Rochon, Peter R. Jervis, Lisa M. Fenech --
lfenech@rochongenova.com -- Obaidul Hoque --
ohoque@rochongenova.com -- and Golnaz Nayerahmadi --
gnayerahmadi@rochongenova.com -- of Rochon Genova LLP in Toronto,
Canada.


MADISON SQUARE: "Yopp" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Dedrionne Yopp, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. The Madison Square Garden Company, MSG
National Properties LLC, MSG Forum, LLC, The Forum and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC658234, (Cal.
Super., April 18, 2017), seeks to recover, among other things,
wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including
but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally
calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period
policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and resigned
employees, reimbursement of necessary expenditures and/or losses
incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to maintain required
records.  The suit further seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code, applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The Madison Square Garden Company is a sports and entertainment
holding company based in New York City where MSG National
Properties LLC and MSG Forum, LLC are its subsidiaries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      Email: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
             tagore@matemlawgroup.com


MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Brady" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malen & Associates,
P.C. The case is captioned as Timothy Brady and Deon Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Malen & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02450 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 24, 2017).

Malen & Associates is a law firm with its practice limited to
creditor's rights, collections, bankruptcy, foreclosure and real
estate closings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MATCH GROUP: Faces "Perkins" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Match Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Chad Perkins, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Match Group,
Inc., doing business as: Okcupid, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02988 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon
Elaine E. Bucklo.

Match Group is an American Internet company that owns and operates
several online dating web sites including OkCupid, Tinder,
PlentyOfFish, and Match.com. The company also operates the test
preparation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 N La Salle St., Ste 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757 1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com


MDL 2263: Court Grants Amended Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe granted the Plaintiffs' amended
motion for class certification filed in the multidistrict
litigation In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1:11-md-02263-SM (D.N.H.).

Judge McAuliffe directs the parties to submit a proposed
certification order that defines the class consistently with the
December 2015 and current orders on or before April 28, 2017.

The consolidated, multi-district class action litigation is
brought by consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated consumers in those states, against Defendant
The Dial Corporation.  The Plaintiffs allege that Dial continually
misrepresented the antibacterial properties of its "Dial Complete"
branded soap, and advance claims under their respective state
consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes, as well
as statutory and common law causes of action for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs take issue with a variety of statements appearing
on Dial Complete's product labels, including claims that Dial
Complete "Kills 99.99% of Germs*,"2 that it is "#1 Doctor
Recommended**," and that Dial Complete "Kills more germs than any
other liquid hand soap."  The Plaintiffs contend that these
statements are false and misleading.  They generally assert four
causes of action: (1) violation of the consumer protection laws of
Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and
Wisconsin; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied
warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=we92Tu5J


MDL 2724: Engineers Local 30's Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund On behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Akorn,Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal
Co., Inc., Perrigo Company PLC, Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Workhardt, Ltd., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Morton
Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Actavis plc, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08539-WHP (filed Nov. 02, 2016), was transferred on
April 18, 2017 from the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-01758-CMR to the proceeding.

The International Union case is being consolidated with MDL 2724
in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The
MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s)
on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in
the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not
become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures, distributes, and
sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases
to dermatologists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Brett Rehns, Esq.
          Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213 8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779 00278
          E-mail: drehns@hrsclaw.com
                  fs@hachroselaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura S Shores, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          600 Massachusetts Ave, NW.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942 5000
          Facsimile: (202) 492 5999
          E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com

               - and -

          Margaret Anne Rogers, Esq.
          Saul P Morgenstern, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LJ,,P
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 836 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 836 8689
          E-mail: margaret.rogers@apks.com
                  saul.morgenstem@apks.com

               - and -

          Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq.
          Katherine Anne Rocco, Esq.
          Douglas Kurtenbach, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NYC)
          601 Lexington A venue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446 4970
          Facsimile: (212) 446 4900
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  jserino@kirkland.com
                  katherine.rocco@kirkland.com
                  douglas.kurtenbach@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Andrew Samuel Wellin, Esq.
          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
          Tracey Fallon Milich, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (NY)
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309 6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
          E-mail: andrew.wellin@morganlewis.com
                  jeverett@morganlewis.com
                  scott.stempel@morganlewis.com
                  tracey.milich@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          James Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
          David Neil Cinotti, Esq.
          Lisa Jose Fales, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, North West
          Washington, DC 20004-1601
          Telephone: (202) 344 4703
          Facsimile: (202) 344 8300
          E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com
                  dncinotti@venable.com

               - and -

          D. Suden, Esq.
          William Alfred Escobar, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP (NY)
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808 7586
          Facsimile: (212) 808 7897
          E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com
                  wescobar@kelleydrye.com


MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Suit Moved to E.D. Pa. from New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., LANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
and EPIC PHARMA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00629-CCC-
MF (filed Jan. 30, 2017), was transferred on April 18, 2017 from
the District of New Jersey (Newark), to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01773-CMR to the proceeding.

The NECA-IBEW case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s)
on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in
the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not
become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Actavis manufactures pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment
and prevention of digestive tract and gastrointestinal diseases
and disorders [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584 0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Seth Benjamin Davis, Esq.
          Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506 1700
          E-mail: sdavis@kasowitz.com
                  smoskowitz@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Evan R. Luce, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 299 2053
          E-mail: eluce@foxrothschild.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Smith, Esq.
          DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK, GLUCK,
          HAYDEN & COLE, LLP
          Glenpointe Centre West
          500 Frank W. Burr Boulevard
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: (201) 907 5228
          E-mail: jsmith@decotiislaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Abbate, Esq.
          DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK
          & COLE, LLP
          Glenpointe Centre West
          500 Frank W. Burr Boulevard
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: (201) 928 1100
          E-mail: tabbate@decotiislaw.com


MDL 2724: Plumbers & Pipefitters Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, the Plaintiff, v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Novartis
International AG, and Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09659-WHP (filed Dec. 14, 2016), was transferred
on April 18, 2017 from the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-01763-CMR to the proceeding.

The Plumbers & Pipefitters case is being consolidated with MDL
2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s)
on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in
the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not
become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals manufactures, markets and/or distributes more
than 430 drugs in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Allan Martin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          165 Broadway, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 00000
          Telephone: (212) 357 1195
          Facsimile: (212) 202 4322
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com


MDLIVE INC: Illegally Shares Patients' Medical Info, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MDLIVE, INC., a Delaware Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60760-WPD (S.D. Fla., Apr. 18, 2017),
seeks injunction that:

     -- prohibits Defendant from collecting and transmitting
patients' private medical information without informed consent;
and

     -- requires Defendant to implement adequate security measures
to restrict access to medical information so that its use will be
limited to providing and/or improving healthcare services.

Plaintiff also seeks an award of actual damages, and award of
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Unbeknownst to patients, MDLive designed an App to capture the
contents of patients' screens by having the App continuously take
screenshots for the first 15 minutes that patients use the App.
Although these screenshots contain patients' sensitive and
confidential health information, Defendant covertly transmits them
to a third party without notifying patients and fails to restrict
access to collected sensitive and confidential medical information
to only those with a legitimate need to view that information
(e.g., doctors and other medical providers).

MDLive is a "telehealth provider of online and on-demand
healthcare delivery services and software." MDLive created a
mobile application (App) which promises consumers "Virtual
Healthcare, Anywhere[,]" including "24/7/365 Access to Board
Certified Doctors, Pediatricians and Therapists."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dillon Brozyna, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          E-mail: dbrozyna@edelson.com
          123 Townsend Street,
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212 9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373 9435


MICHIGAN: Sued Over Sex Discrimination in Job Assignments
---------------------------------------------------------
LOU ANN KASPRZYNSKI, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN AND
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-11220-MAG-SDD (E.D. Mich., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from further discrimination in job assignments on the
basis of sex at Huron Valley.

As a result of MDOC's discriminatory conduct and an inability to
transfer to another facility, Plaintiff began suffering from
anxiety, was prescribed anti-anxiety medication and
antidepressants, and took medical leave on several occasions. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated female COs at Huron Valley have
suffered emotional distress and economic harm as a result of the
discriminatory denial of transfers. The Plaintiff was wrongfully
terminated from her employment with MDOC on March 16, 2016.

The Defendant MDOC is a governmental agency created pursuant to
the laws of the State of Michigan. MDOC administers and operates
Defendant State of Michigan's correctional system and prison
facilities, which encompasses over 30 correctional facilities,
house over 43,000 inmates, and employ over 7,300 Correctional
Officers (COs). As of June of 2016, of those COs, approximately
6,077 (83%) of MDOC COs system wide are male and 1,292 (17%) are
female.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Rasor, Esq.
          Andrew J. Laurila, Esq.
          RASOR LAW FIRM PLLC
          201 E 4th Street
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 543 9000
          Facsimile: (248) 543 9050
          E-mail: jbr@rasorlawfirm.com
                  ajl@rasorlawfirm.com


MISONIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs Have Until June 8 to Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cas,e Scalfani v. Misonix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
05218 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Arthur D Spatt on April 20, 2017,
granted the request of plaintiffs for more time to file an amended
complaint.  According to the Court, there being no objection to
the relief sought, the time for the Lead Plaintiffs to continue
their underlying investigation and file an amended complaint is
extended to and including June 8.

In a March 24, 2017 Order, Judge Spatt granted a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff and counsel.  Specifically, the Court appointed
Richard Scalfani and Tracey Angiuoli as the Lead Plaintiffs in
this matter, and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as their chosen Lead
Counsel.

According to Misonix's March 13, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2016, on September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an
individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the
Company and its former CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the Company's
stock price was artificially inflated between November 5, 2015 and
September 14, 2016 as a result of alleged false and misleading
statements in the Company's securities filings concerning the
Company's business, operations, and prospects and the Company's
internal control over financial reporting. Scalfani filed the
action seeking to represent a putative class of all persons (other
than defendants, officers and directors of the Company, and their
affiliates) who purchased publicly traded Misonix securities
between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016. Scalfani seeks an
unspecified amount of damages for himself and for the putative
class under the federal securities laws.

On November 18, 2016, Scalfani and another individual Misonix
shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, petitioned the Court to be appointed
lead plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of
the putative class.

The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to
the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend
the action. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been no
discovery and there is no trial date.

Misonix, Inc., designs, manufactures, develops and markets
therapeutic ultrasonic devices.  These products are used for
precise bone sculpting, removal of soft tumors, and tissue
debridement in the fields of orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery,
neurosurgery, podiatry and vascular surgery.  In the United
States, the Company sells its products through a network of
commissioned agents assisted by Company personnel.  Outside of the
United States, the Company sells to distributors, who then resell
the product to hospitals.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Nancy Farrell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02376 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 20, 2017).

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRS BPO: Facees "Hoffman" Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelina Hoffman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No 2:17-cv-02447 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 24, 2017).

MRS BPO offers financial services, healthcare, cable, utilities,
and telecommunication debt recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYLAN INC: Faces American Federation Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mylan, Inc. The case
is captioned as AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
MYLAN, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TARO
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and SANDOZ, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01849-CMR (E.D. Pa., Apr. 24, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe.

Mylan, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
generic, branded generic, and specialty pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN
          CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700

Mylan, Inc. is represented by:

          Arnold B. Calmann, Esq.
          CRUMMY, DEL DEO, DOLAN,
          GRIFFINGER & VECCHIONE
          One Riverfront Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102-5497

Sandoz, Inc. is represented by:

          John B. Mccusker, Esq.
          MCCUSKER ANSELMI
          ROSEN & CARVELLI PC
          210 Park Ave Suite 301
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 635 6300


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is titled as Hindy Kalmenson, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02453
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 24, 2017).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVMAR APPLIED: Faces "Ramos" Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------
MARCO RAMOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, 23013 Delea Lane Wildomar, CA 92595, the Plaintiffs, v.
NAVMAR APPLIED SCIENCES CORPORATION, 65 W. Street Road, Building
C, Warminster, PA 18974, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01779-ER
(E.D. Pa., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks award of damages, in an amount to
be determined at trial, including unpaid back-end and front-end
wages as well as liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this action for declaratory, monetary, and other
appropriate relief to redress Navmar's intentional violations of
their rights under the FLSA. Ramos and all other similarly
situated employees were not paid full wages for all hours worked
or overtime compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half
(1.5) times the regular rate at which they were employed for work
performed beyond the 40 hours per workweek, as required by the
FLSA for at least three years prior to the filing of this action.

Navmar provides engineering and technical solutions in the areas
of acoustics, electronics, aerodynamics, and systems engineering.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          KLEINBARD LLC
          One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 443 4120
          Facsimile: (215) 568 0140
          E-mail: prosenzweig@kleinbard.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rubenstein" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Rubenstein's appeal from the dismissal of her second amended
complaint remains pending, Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 14, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 28, 2017.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

The Company said: "On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On
October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted on December 12, 2014. In its order
dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave
to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first
amended complaint on December 22, 2014. On January 6, 2015, we
filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the
court granted on March 2, 2015. In its order dismissing the first
amended complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file
a second amended complaint, which she filed on March 17, 2015. On
April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice
to appeal the court's ruling."

The appeal is pending, briefing is complete, and oral argument is
set for February 17, 2017."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeal in "Attia" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's appeal in the putative class action
lawsuit filed by Holly Attia, et al., in California remains
pending, according to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 28, 2017.

On February 11, 2016, a putative class action first amended
complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Holly Attia and
seven other named plaintiffs. They allege claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages due at termination and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements. Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
restitution under California unfair competition law and a
representative claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs seek to certify
a class of all nonexempt employees of the Company in California
since December 31, 2011. Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged
Labor Code violations as well as restitution, statutory penalties
under PAGA, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit.

The Company removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 17, 2016, and subsequently
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to all named plaintiffs
and requested to stay the PAGA claim. On June 27, 2016, the court
granted the motion and compelled arbitration of the individual
claims. The court retained jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and
stayed that claim pending the outcome of arbitration.

On September 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order regarding the arbitration. On
October 18, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration based on a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, and reversed its
order granting the motion to compel arbitration. The Company filed
an appeal on November 16, 2016. The case will proceed in district
court while the appeal is pending. The district court has set a
trial date in the matter of February 6, 2018.

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

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: To Settle Cyber-Attack Suit for $1.6MM
-----------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus has agreed to pay $1.6 million to resolve a data
breach class action in Illinois federal court over a December 2013
cyber intrusion that revealed the credit card data of 350,000
shoppers of the luxury retailer, according to a March 17 report by
Suevon Lee, writing for Law360, citing court documents.

The proposed settlement covers U.S. residents who held a credit or
debit card account used at any physical locations operating under
the Neiman Marcus Group LLC name, including its namesake, Bergdorf
Goodman, Cusp or Last Call, from July 16, 2013, to Jan. 10, 2014.

Plaintiffs' lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
to preliminarily approve the settlement and certify the class,
making good on their recent assurance that a deal had been reached
and would be revealed if the judge reopened the suit, which he
dismissed in February after saying it was languishing on the
docket without apparent mediation efforts.

The shoppers have said the parties had engaged in mediation talks
over the past year, and asked the court to reopen the case.

Neiman Marcus customers Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie
Farnoush and Joanne Kao sued the retailer in March 2014, after it
said that a December 2013 data breach had revealed the credit card
data of 350,000 shoppers. The company claimed that 9,200 accounts
were actually impacted.

Under the deal, each class member who submits a valid claim is
eligible to receive up to $100 from the settlement fund. The deal
also calls for each class representative to receive up to $2,500
in service awards. Class counsel will seek up to $530,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 28, 2017, three class actions relating to a cyber-attack
on the Company's computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack")
were filed in January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had
alleged negligence and other claims in connection with their
purchases by payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive
relief. Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-
file a complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-
file a complaint. Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice
to her right to re-file a complaint.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and
without prejudice as to Shields.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. On June 2, 2014, an amended
complaint in the Remijas case was filed, which added three
plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents;
and Melissa Frank, a New York resident) and asserted claims for
negligence, implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of
various consumer protection statutes, invasion of privacy and
violation of state data breach laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July
2, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury. On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
district court's order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On
July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. On August 3, 2015, the Company
filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On September 17, 2015, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition for
rehearing.

The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015
and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion
of the Company's previously filed motion to dismiss that had not
been addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for
December 15, 2015. The parties completed supplemental briefing on
December 21, 2015. On January 13, 2016, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss. The parties jointly requested, and
the Court granted, an extension of time for filing a responsive
pleading, which was due on December 28, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, the Court denied the parties' request for
another extension of time, dismissed the case without prejudice,
and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to reinstate. On
March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed their motion to reinstate, and the
hearing was set for March 15, 2017.

The consumers are represented by Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson
PC, John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group
and Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC.

Neiman Marcus is represented by David H. Hoffman, Geeta Malhotra,
Steven M. Bierman, James D. Arden and Daniel Craig of Sidley
Austin LLP.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Connolly" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The labor-related lawsuit filed by Milca Connolly in California
remains stayed, Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2017, for the quarter period ended January 28, 2017.

On July 28, 2016, former employee Milca Connolly filed a
representative action alleging only PAGA claims against The Neiman
Marcus Group in the Superior Court of California, Orange County.
Ms. Connolly's complaint raises PAGA claims substantially
identical to those raised in Attia and Nguyen based on allegations
of failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, unlawful deductions
from wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages due at
termination and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements. The Company was served with the Complaint in Connolly
on September 8, 2016.

On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or stay
the case in light of the Attia and Nguyen matters. At the hearing
on November 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
stay the case.

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

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Nguyen" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit commenced by Xuan Hien Nguyen in California remains
stayed, according to Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's March 14, 2017,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 28, 2017.

On June 1, 2016, a PAGA representative action was filed against
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, by Xuan Hien Nguyen pleading only PAGA claims and
asserting the same factual allegations as the plaintiffs in the
Attia matter. On July 21, 2016, Ms. Nguyen filed an amended
complaint with no material differences from the original
complaint. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss or to stay the case. The motion was heard on September 23,
2016. At the hearing, the court granted the Company's motion and
stayed the Nguyen case in light of the Attia matter.

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

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Ohle" Suit to Return for Further Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
The dormant putative class action lawsuit initiated by Catherine
Ohle will be returned to the trial court for further proceedings,
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 28, 2017.

On September 27, 2016, a dormant Illinois putative class action
lawsuit, Catherine Ohle v. Neiman Marcus Group, originally filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, was revived by an Illinois
appeals court when it reversed a June 2014 trial court's order
granting summary judgment to the Company and dismissing the matter
in its entirety. In Ohle, the plaintiff alleged that the Company's
prior practice of conducting pre-employment credit checks of sales
associates and considering credit history as a factor in its
hiring decisions violated the Illinois Employee Credit Privacy
Act. The appellate court reversed, holding that no exemption
applied.

The Company appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court,
and review was denied on January 25, 2017. The case will be
returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Tanguilig" Suit Remains Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Bernadette Tanguilig remains
pending in California, according to Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's
March 14, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 28, 2017.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for
the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20,
2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and
injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed
"related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court
judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the
Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).  Following the court's
order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") seeking to
arbitrate not only their individual claims, but also class claims,
which the Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings
in the trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by
the trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order
compelling arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to
vacate its order compelling arbitration due to a recent California
appellate court decision.  Following this ruling, the Company
timely filed two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela
and one with respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of
Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
to change its earlier determination of the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement. On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral
argument, the California Court of Appeal issued its order
affirming the trial court's denial of the Company's motion to
compel arbitration and awarding Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal.

The Company said: "On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for
rehearing with the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on
July 29, 2015. On August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for
review with the California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his
answer on August 31, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the California
Supreme Court denied our petition for review. On October 6, 2015,
the case was transferred back to the trial court. On November 16,
2015, Mr. Pinela filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the
trial court until after the appellate court resolves Ms.
Tanguilig's appeal. On December 10, 2015, the hearing on Mr.
Pinela's motion to stay and a case management conference were
held, and the trial court judge issued an order granting the
motion and issuing a stay, which currently remains in effect. The
appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final
approval of the class action settlement (as described below) had
been granted."

"With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to
set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1,
2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including
the civil penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims
to trial within five years as required by California law. After
several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014
trial date. The court awarded the Company its costs of suit in
connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied
its request of an attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms.
Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her
claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of
costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of
Appeal. Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial
court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation
will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of
the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this
occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by
the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case (as
described below); however, that settlement does not cover claims
asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from
approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning
of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on
the appeals is complete, and a judicial panel has been assigned.
The parties have requested oral argument, but no date has been
set."

"In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.
A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her
motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was
held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on
July 28, 2015."

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb
matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and
have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with
the settlement. We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter,
and our recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent
events, new information and future circumstances."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury retailer conducting
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
Last Call and MyTheresa brand names.  The Company conducts its
specialty retail store and online operations on an omni-channel
basis.


NELSON NAME: Faces "Gamboa" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
CELINA GAMBOA, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. NELSON NAME PLATE COMPANY (Lb/a NELSON
MILLER, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 658201 (Cal., Super., County of
Los Angeles, April 18, 2017), alleges that as part of DEFENDANTS'
alleged illegal payroll policies and practices to deprive their
non-exempt employees all wages earned and due, DEFENDANTS
required, permitted or otherwise suffered PLAINTIFF and CLASS
MEMBERS to take less than the 30-minute meal period, or to work
through them, and have failed to otherwise provide the required
meal periods to PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS pursuant to California
Labor Code and Industrial Wage Commission Order No. 1-2001,
Section 11.

Nelson Nameplate Company manufactures a variety of nameplates
including anodized, bar-coded, etched, graphic overlayed, and
screen printed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310)531-1900
     Fax: (310)531-1901
     E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
             tagore@matemlawgroup.com


NEW YORK: Could Face Class Action Over Biased Property Tax System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg B. Smith, writing for New York Daily News, reported that this
year Mayor de Blasio will pay USD3,581 in property taxes on each
of two row houses he owns in ultra-gentrified Park Slope. The city
says his properties are worth about USD1.6 million apiece.

Some 14 miles away, in middle-class Laurelton, Queens, Arthur
Russell, 66, who retired from computer sales, will pay a property
tax bill that, at USD4,569, is about 28% higher than the mayor's -
- even though the city says his single-family home is worth 75%
less than de Blasio's properties, at USD396,000.

If Russell were taxed like the mayor, his bill would fall by
roughly USD3,500 a year.

"That money could be vacation money," said Russell, who is
African-American. "It's a substantial amount. My frustration is
that it's blatant abuse. People, if you take a look at this thing,
you see disparity."

De Blasio says property tax cap for NYC is a 'non-starter'

Across the five boroughs, the city Department of Finance is
subjecting tens of thousands of homeowners to similarly unequal
billing -- with the winners located primarily in upscale
neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Brooklyn Heights and Greenwich
Village and the losers located overwhelmingly in working- and
middle-class neighborhoods like South Jamaica, East New York and
Brownsville.

Often, the brunt falls most heavily on black or Hispanic property
owners.

A coalition called Tax Equity Now NY, which includes the NAACP,
the Black Institute, several landlords and homeowners, has teamed
up with lawyers from the firm Latham & Watkins, including former
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippmann, to file a class-action suit
charging that the DNA of the city's property tax system is
racially biased and favors the affluent over the working- and
middle-class.

"This is an insidious sort of economic oppression that doesn't
seem sexy, that doesn't seem to pop up," said Bertha Lewis, Black
Institute's president. "The more we looked into this, it's just
outrageous these inequities -- from neighborhood to neighborhood,
community to community being taxed at different rates."

With data compiled by Martha Stark, a commissioner of finance
during the Bloomberg administration, the lawsuit documents a
jarring unfairness between the haves and the have-nots --
particularly for homeowners.

The higher the assessed value of a property, the bigger the tax
bill. To keep things fair, the state requires that appraisals be
based on sales of similar properties.

That's not what's happening in New York City.

The data show that collectively, New York City homeowners in
predominantly minority neighborhoods pay USD376 million more than
they would have if their properties had been accurately appraised
based on comparative sales. Their properties are over-assessed by
USD1.7 billion, which averages to an extra USD844 per homeowner
per year.

Councilmembers want USD400 tax rebate for some property owners
Homeowners in Washington Heights, where the demographic is 83%
non-white, are assessed at 141% of comparative sales prices.
Homeowners in highly gentrified Williamsburg/Greenpoint (which is
63% white) are assessed at only 74% of comparative sales.

Majority white neighborhoods get this assessment break almost
universally -- properties in Park Slope/Carroll Gardens are
assessed at 86% of average sales prices, Brooklyn Heights/DUMBO at
87% and Greenwich Village at 94%.

Of the 101 sales in Park Slope in 2015, the city assigned market
values totaling USD10 million less than the actual sales total of
USD269 million. That included a one-family on Prospect Park West
that sold for USD12.4 million but was given a market value of
USD4.9 million and one on Garfield Place that sold for USD7.6
million but was appraised at USD4.2 million.

Around the corner from de Blasio's row houses, a three-family home
that sold for USD2.7 million was appraised at USD2.2 million,
while a single-family home that sold for USD1.2 million was
appraised by the city at USD929,431.

De Blasio grilled over resistance to property tax cap

Farther into the outer boroughs homes in nearly all of the poorest
neighborhoods are assigned assessments that greatly exceed
comparative sales prices, including Jamaica/Hollis in Queens
(111%), Crotona Park (123%) in the Bronx and East New York in
Brooklyn (112%).

A two-family home on Liberty Ave. in East New York, for example,
sold for USD105,000 but was appraised at USD438,000 by the Finance
Department. Across East New York in 2015, the city assigned a
market value of USD232.3 million to properties that sold for
USD194 million.

East New York homeowner Guy Sumler, 59, technically faces a
USD7,308 tax bill on a property the city values at USD156,000 -- a
property that is remarkably similar to the mayor's: a two-story
row house.

He is aware the mayor's tax bill is half the amount of his.

Sumler, an African-American tech consultant, said he came across
the inequities while doing research on why his tax bill was so
hefty.

"I did see certain areas where we're paying much more taxes than
much more influential neighborhoods," he said. "The few
influential neighborhoods, those people don't look like me."
He lives with his 84-year-old mother so the home gets a senior
citizen tax break that lowers the bill to USD3,038, but even that
is an annual stress.

"You have a community that's a low income community that cannot
keep up paying their taxes, plus the mortgage plus the other
costs. It is not an easy task," he said.

Councilmembers want USD400 tax rebate for property owners


Up in the middle-class Spencer Estates in the Bronx, retired NYPD
Detective Victor DiPierro, 49, paid USD1,700 in taxes in 2003, the
year he bought a two-story single-family home the city says is
worth USD512,000. Today he pays USD6,141 -- nearly twice what the
mayor pays on his USD1.5 million row house.

"It's just not fair. We're blue collar people. We're not
millionaires," he said.

Though property assessment is not an exact science, it is math
based and an error rate on appraisals of plus- or minus- 10 points
is considered acceptable by appraisal professionals, experts say.
New York City's assessment error rate has a plus or minus of
nearly 100, with the agency's estimation of value ranging from
49.9% of actual sales prices to 141.1% of actual sales prices.
"That's terrible," said Patrick O'Connor of Texas-based O'Connor
Consulting, experts in residential valuation.

He should know -- he was also the head of the New York City
Department of Finance Property Division back in the 1990s.

The inequities for homeowners, he said, are created by rules that
cap increases to assessments at 6% per year and no more than 20%
within five years.

Because higher value properties rise in value faster, O'Connor
says the caps suppress their assessed value while actual sales
prices rise higher and higher. Lower value homes tend to stay flat
in value, so the 6% assessment hikes often drive their assessed
value above their actual sales value.

"The higher value areas were going up faster until the caps. The
higher value neighborhoods have benefited from the cap more than
the other areas of the city," he said. "That's what the problem
is."

On April 21 Finance Department spokeswoman Sonia Alleyne said the
agency "values properties based on requirements set out in New
York State law. The law includes a cap on assessed values for one-
to three-family homes that can create disparities in the taxes
paid by owners of homes in different neighborhoods."

This is exacerbated because the system also places a
disproportionate burden on rental buildings with more than 11
units, which the lawsuit will allege is passed on to tenants.
While big apartment buildings account for 24% of market value in
the city, they pay 37% of the taxes.

As the unfairness of the system became more obvious over the
years, property owners tried to get the city and state to fix the
problem, but politicians -- fearful of enraging certain classes of
taxpayers -- looked away.

The problem in eliminating these inequities is some taxpayers will
end up paying more and some less down the line -- a radioactive
equation for most politicians, says Carol Kellerman, president of
the Citizens Budget Commission, a good government group that's
been seeking reform for years.

"It's gotten out of whack, but it's hard to quantify and then
present the bill," she said. "The problem is, if you run them
through the formula, there will be some people who are taxed more
and some who are taxed less. And our political system doesn't seem
to handle well situations where there are winners and losers."
Last week, this became obvious during a press conference when the
mayor was asked about his modest property tax bills.

He conceded "there are obvious inequities" in the system and
promised to confront the problem -- but only if he is re-elected
this fall. Asked why he couldn't take on the issue now he replied:
"It's because it is something that is going to take so much effort
and so much of the administration's time and energy that it's just
not a thing we're going to do now."

He called any push for property tax reform as a "massive
undertaking, about the most controversial thing you could
imagine," and made a point of noting that it can't result in a
loss of revenue.

"We can't lose revenue in the bargain. We just can't," he said.
"Let's be real world about it." [GN]


NEW YORK: Has New Deal for the Disabled
---------------------------------------
New York Daily News reports New York State promised thousands of
mentally ill people stuck in sometimes squalid, sometimes unsafe
institutions known as adult homes a chance for an independent
life.

Gov. Cuomo must not now let that chance slip away in a storm of
lawyers' motions and defensive maneuvers. Neither should bench
bulldog Brooklyn Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, entrusted with
their fate.

Four years ago, settling a lawsuit brought by the federal
government that built on advocates' 2003 class action case, the
state agreed that by this July, it would screen at least 2,500 of
the more than 4,000 eligible, preparing to move out those who are
ready into apartments with social services.

With just three months left, a scant 500 have moved and hundreds
await evaluation, following absurd delays. And that's the part
that's going pretty well.

The real mess, and threat to a better future for adult home
residents who deserve better options, is a legal quagmire partly
of the state's making.

Predictably, adult home operators sued to block Department of
Health rules that, in anticipation of the settlement, limited how
many mentally ill people could remain in the institutions.
Stunningly, the state agreed to suspend its own regulations -- to
head off the risk of a costly court order, goes the reasoning --
triggering a time bomb in the federal settlement.

In coming weeks, the state and the advocates for the mentally ill
must reach agreement on new terms, or start all over again at a
fresh trial -- while residents who want to move out languish.

While speeding relocation, all must also reckon with the reality
that fully half of adult home residents asked say they're happy to
stay just where they are, while some who move out -- including the
plaintiff in the case suspending the state rules -- want to move
back in and currently can't.

That includes Garaufis, whose past overreach righting Fire
Department hiring discrimination rippled unhelpful if unintended
consequences for many applicants.

Yes, the adult home operators have an economic interest at play,
and may well be persuading residents to stay who may be better off
elsewhere. Nonetheless: The driving principle for adult home
residents must be freedom of choice. So says the law, and so
indicate a surprising many of the clients in whose name the
attorneys fight. [GN]


NOBILIS HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Capelli" Suit in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. continues to defend itself and certain
officers against a shareholder lawsuit filed by Vince Capelli in
Ontario, Canada, according to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A statement of claim (complaint), Vince Capelli v. Nobilis Health
Corp., et al., was filed on January 8, 2016 in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice under court file number CV-16-544173
naming Nobilis Health Corp., certain current and former officers
and the Company's former auditors as defendants. The statement of
claim seeks to advance claims on behalf of the plaintiff and on
behalf of a class comprised of certain of the Company's
shareholders related to, among other things, alleged certain
violations of the Ontario Securities Act and seeks damages in the
amount of $100 million plus interest.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
At this time, the Company believes it is too early to provide a
realistic estimate of the Company's exposure.

Nobilis Health Corp. was incorporated on March 16, 2007 under the
name "Northstar Healthcare Inc." pursuant to the provisions of the
British Columbia Business Corporations Act. On December 5, 2014,
Northstar Healthcare Inc. changed its name to Nobilis Health Corp.
The Company owns, operates and manages outpatient surgery centers
and surgical hospitals.


NOTIS GLOBAL: Faces New Suit Amidst Shareholders' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Cohen at The Recorder reports the marijuana vending
machine startup Medbox Inc. got smoked last month by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, which accused the company of
filing sham earnings reports. It was the latest in a series of
setbacks for the cannabis company, which last year changed its
name to Notis Global Inc.

The SEC's March 9 announcement that it had charged Medbox with
falsely touting "record" revenues based on illegal stock sales was
only the latest round of legal trouble for the embattled
dispensary. Medbox founder Vincent Mehdizadeh, once touted as the
legal weed industry's first potential billionaire, agreed to pay
USD12 million to settle his part of the SEC case.

Mehdizadeh and other Medbox executives -- including former CEO
Bruce Bedrick -- have faced multiple securities class actions and
shareholder derivative suits alleging that they failed to fulfill
their fiduciary duties. As part of a settlement agreement in one
of those derivative suits, a judge in the Central District of
California ordered on March 3 that Mehdizadeh and Bedrick transfer
a combined 2.3 million shares of company stock into an account
covering plaintiffs attorney fees. Any stock left in the account
after the lawyers got paid would go to shareholders.

According to a case docket, the plaintiffs were represented by
three lawyers from La Jolla, California-based Bottini & Bottini, a
boutique that specializes in shareholder class action litigation
and derivative claims, as well as James Noblin of Larkspur,
California-based Green & Noblin and William Federman of Oklahoma
City-based Federman & Sherwood.

Federman said that he didn't accept any Medbox stock because he
considered it a conflict of interest to do so.

"Shareholders are going to receive such a small, small payout in
the securities class action," Federman said. "It seems to be
insult after injury in a class action where there's such a small
recovery for the lawyers to take the stock."

As far as Federman knows, the other plaintiffs' counsel involved
in the derivative suit did take the shares as part of their fee
agreement, he said. Bottini & Bottini name partner Francis Bottini
Jr. and Green & Noblin's Noblin did not respond to requests for
comment on the settlement agreements. Noblin and Bottini would not
be Medbox's first lawyer-owners.

The American Lawyer reported in 2015 on two law firms -- Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips and New York-based boutique Sichenzia Ross
Friedman Ference (now called Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner) --
accepting shares in Medbox as it coped with a range of litigation
and regulatory issues. Though Medbox was once valued at USD2
billion, the company's 2016 financial report showed it had a net
loss of USD50.5 million for the previous year, and only USD532,791
in revenue.

Manatt Phelps litigation partner Phillip Kaplan represented Medbox
in the shareholder class action it settled in March. He declined
to comment on whether his firm has held on to its stake in the
company, which according to an annual report filed in 2014 had
46,352 shares being issued to Manatt Phelps at USD5.11 per share.
Another 6,540 shares were issued to Sichenzia Ross at USD6.59 per
share, putting the firm's holdings at USD43,098.60 and Manatt
Phelps' at USD236,858.72.

A Manatt Phelps spokesman and corporate partner Blase Dillingham,
who has also done work for Medbox and its successor Notis Global,
did not return requests for comment. Nor did Sichenzia Ross
corporate partner Darrin Ocasio, another lawyer for the company. A
spokeswoman for Notis Global said she couldn't discuss matters
involving the company's shareholders.

Federman said he hasn't closely followed the SEC's allegations
against Notis Global, which include the claim that Mehdizadeh
created a shell company to make illegal stock sales and used
profits from those sales to purchase a luxury home in the Pacific
Palisades, an affluent seaside neighborhood in Los Angeles.

Federman did not that the company formerly known as Medbox is "in
a difficult business segment."

Mehdizadeh, who once faced charges of impersonating an attorney
that he later pleaded no contest to, is not the first pot stock
entrepreneur to run into trouble.

In a similar case last year, the SEC charged two brothers-in-law
who allegedly schemed to funnel illegal stock sales to Fusion
Pharm Inc., a company that makes containers for growing marijuana.
Fusion Pharm and other defendants reached a settlement with the
SEC, but not before the regulatory agency had suspended trading in
the company.

GrowLife Inc., another cannabis company once headed by former
Jenner & Block partner Sterling Scott, had trading in its shares
halted by the SEC in 2014. GrowLife reached its own derivative
settlement with shareholders the following year and Scott is no
longer involved with the company. [GN]


NYCHA: To Launch Anti-Mold Program as Part of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg B. Smith of New York Daily News reports if there's something
strange in your NYCHA home, who you gonna call? Obviously, Mold
Busters!

The New York City Housing Authority will announce the launch of a
pilot program to abate pervasive mold from its aging buildings.
Under the program -- dubbed Mold Busters -- workers will be
equipped with special meters to monitor moisture in apartments and
accurately target the cause of the mold.

The anti-mold program comes as a judge has extended the court
oversight of NYCHA for another year, the Daily News has learned.
In December 2013, NYCHA settled a class action suit by promising
to address allegations that its failure to eradicate mold was
harming tenants who have asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Since then, the agency has failed to turn things around, and a
federal judge last year brought in a special master to speed up
the process. That oversight was set to end this week.

But last month Manhattan Federal Judge William Pauley agreed to
extend court monitoring into April 2018 after NYCHA and the
special master came up with the tougher anti-mold campaign.

Since the consent decree was first signed, NYCHA workers have
tried to address mold complaints, but often they don't address a
common source of the problem -- water behind the wall, tenants
say.

When leaky pipes are found and repaired, staff will wrap them with
insulation to reduce the risk of renewed moisture, use mold-
killing paint on walls and address ventilation issues in
bathrooms.

The new program kicks off May 1 but only targets 38 of NYCHA's 328
developments. Metro Industrial Area Foundation, the community
group that sued NYCHA to address this problem, described the new
program as better-late-than-never.

"We hope that it works," said the Rev. Getulio Cruz, pastor of
Monte Sion Christian Church, and a Metro IAF leader. "However,
this comes after decades of neglect by NYCHA and almost three
years after they agreed in federal court to really address mold."
[GN]


O'HARE AUTO: "Bruno" Suit Asserts FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY BRUNO, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. O'HARE AUTO
BODY, LTD., AND THOMAS M. STIEFBOLD, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02933 (N.D. Ill., April 19, 2017), alleges that
Defendants required Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff class
to perform work duties during some or all of their unpaid meal
breaks and required Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class
to work in excess of 40 hours per work week without pay for those
hours over 40 at a rate of time and one-half their regular hourly
rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant, O'HARE AUTO BODY, LTD., operates as an auto body repair
shop.  Plaintiff, GREGORY BRUNO, is a former employee who
performed work as a laborer in the auto body shop for Defendants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450


OHIO, USA: Intellectually Disabled Class Certified in "Ball" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., entered an opinion and order in
the lawsuit styled PHYLLIS BALL, by her General Guardian, PHYLLIS
BURBA, et al. v. JOHN KASICH, Governor of Ohio, in his official
capacity, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00282-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Court certifies a class, which consists of:

     All Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and
     developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio
     who, on or after March 31, 2016, are institutionalized, or
     at serious risk of institutionalization, in an Intermediate
     Care Facility with eight or more beds, and who have not
     documented their opposite to receiving integrate,
     community-based services.

The proposed class action was filed on March 31, 2016 by
Plaintiffs Phyllis Ball, Antonio Butler, Caryl Mason, Richard
Walters, Ross Hamilton, and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals
with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who are
institutionalized or at serious risk of institutionalization in
large Intermediate Care Facilities with eight or more beds
throughout Ohio.  The action is brought against Defendants John
Kasich (in his official capacity as Governor of Ohio), Kevin
Miller (in his official capacity as Director of Opportunities for
Ohioans with Disabilities), John McCarthy (in his official
capacity as Director of the Ohio.

The Court further designates Disability Rights Ohio, Sidley
Austin, LLP, Samuel Bagenstos, and the Center for Public
Representation as co-class counsel.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4ILAkf4O


OKCUPID: User Files Class Action Over Inactive Profiles
-------------------------------------------------------
Interrobang reports that when an OkCupid user paid $44.99 for the
"A-List" package which allowed him to view other users who "liked"
his profile, he soon noticed all the likes were from inactive
profiles.  After reaching out to OkCupid, all he got was an
apology for a "software programming error or bug".  Now he's filed
a class action lawsuit to get his money back and "other damages."

The appeal is slated to be heard by the Federal Court on May 15.


ONECOMMAND INC: 9th Circ. Standing Ruling Saves Axed TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande at Law360 reports a California federal judge on
April 21 reversed his decision to toss a putative class action
accusing a car dealership and its marketing partner of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by pestering consumers with
automated calls, ruling that a recent Ninth Circuit ruling upended
his determination that the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila issued a ruling in February
granting advertiser OneCommand Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
putative TCPA class action against it and car dealership operator
Normandin's on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to
establish Article III standing under the standard set by the U.S.
Supreme Court's May ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, which held that
plaintiffs must show concrete harm and not rely on mere statutory
violations to proceed with claims in federal court.

Plaintiffs Alan Brinker, Austin Rugg and Ana Sanders immediately
moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's
January ruling in Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group -- in which
the appellate panel found that an ex-gym member accusing Vertical
Fitness of sending spam texts suffered a concrete injury under the
Spokeo bar -- required Judge Davila to revive their case, a
contention with which the judge agreed in his decision.

"Under Van Patten, the plaintiffs in this case have standing," the
judge wrote. "They claim that Normandin's and OneCommand place
unsolicited, automated calls to their phones in violation of the
TCPA. After Van Patten, these allegations are sufficient to show
that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury."

While the Ninth Circuit ended up ultimately scrapping the Van
Patten case on the grounds that the plaintiff had not effectively
revoked his prior consent to receive text messages and therefore
did not have a viable TCPA claim, the appellate panel before
reaching that holding ruled in favor of Van Patten on the question
of Article III standing.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit panel held because Congress
identified unsolicited contact as a concrete harm and gave
consumers a means to redress this harm -- and because federal
lawmakers have "some permissible role in elevating concrete, de
facto injuries previously inadequate in law 'to the status of
legally cognizable injuries'" -- any violation of the TCPA is a
concrete, de facto injury sufficient to support standing, and
plaintiffs asserting TCPA violations don't need to allege any
additional harm beyond the one Congress has identified.

Judge Davila seized on this reasoning in reviving the putative
class action against OneCommand and Normandin's, which the
plaintiffs have based on the assertion that they were injured
because the calls placed on behalf of the car dealership violated
their privacy and were "annoying and harassing."

In his ruling, Judge Davila also reserved judgment on the
defendants' argument raised in their opposition to the plaintiffs'
reconsideration bid that the consumers lack standing to represent
a class of individuals who received eight other types of calls
that none of the named plaintiffs received.

"The court will address OneCommand's argument in its forthcoming
order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification," Judge Davila
said, adding that "any issues regarding the relationship between
the class representatives and passive class members -- such as
dissimilarity in injuries suffered -- are relevant only to class
certification, not to standing."

The parties' dispute dates to July 2014, when the plaintiffs
launched their TCPA suit against Normandin's, which operates a car
dealership in San Jose, California, and OneCommand, which sells
advertising services to car dealerships.

The plaintiffs -- who were all customers of Normandin's before
they received the calls -- claimed that OneCommand unlawfully
called them and other current and potential Normandin's customers
using an automatic telephone dialing system. Brinker says that he
received one call that resulted in a voicemail that he returned,
and Rugg and Sanders each claimed to have gotten "approximately
five or six" unsolicited autodialed calls.

The plaintiffs sought to bring claims on behalf of a "cell phone
class," which would include those who received calls from
Normandin's and OneCommand, and a "national do-not-call class,"
which would encompass call recipients whose numbers appear on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.

OneCommand moved in September to dismiss the suit on the grounds
that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were insufficient to confer
Article III standing under Spokeo, leading to the February
dismissal that Judge Davila overturned on April 21.

The plaintiffs are represented by Beth E. Terrell, Mary B. Reiten,
Adrienne D. McEntee and A. Janay Ferguson of Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Michael F. Ram of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP
and Rob Williamson and Kim Williams of Williamson & Williams.

Normandin's is represented by Andrew V. Stearns and Robert B.
Robards of Robards & Stearns. OneCommand is represented by Sean P.
Flynn and Daniel S. Kubasak of Gordon & Rees LLP and Steven C.
Coffaro and Drew Hicks of KMK Law.

The case is Brinker v. Normandin's, case number 5:14-cv-03007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
[GN]


OREGON: Drops Multiple Defenses in Timber Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski at Herald News reports the state has conceded
that a class-action lawsuit seeking USD1.4 billion for
insufficient timber harvests isn't blocked by the statute of
limitations.

The state government has also dropped its argument that county
governments and local taxing districts don't have legal standing
to sue for alleged breach of contract.

Last year, Linn County filed a lawsuit accusing the state of
violating contracts with 15 counties by reducing logging on about
650,000 acres of forestland the counties had donated to the state.

The lawsuit was certified as a class action by Linn County Circuit
Judge Daniel Murphy, which means the 15 counties and roughly 150
taxing districts, such as schools and fire departments, were
joined as plaintiffs in the case.

Since then, Clatsop County and a few smaller taxing districts have
opted out of the lawsuit.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the judge to eliminate 12
"affirmative defenses" intended to shield the state from the
lawsuit.

During oral arguments on April 20, Oregon's attorneys agreed to
drop several of these defenses, including the expiration of the
statute of limitations, the plaintiffs' lack of legal standing and
the court's lack of jurisdiction over the case.

However, Oregon's attorneys also argued for the validity of
remaining defenses, such as the claim that the federal Endangered
Species Act and Clean Water Act preclude the level of logging
sought by the plaintiffs.

Counties turned over the forestlands in the early 20th century in
return for a share of timber revenues, but plaintiffs claim Oregon
has curtailed logging due to environmental and recreational
considerations.

Even if the Oregon's contract with the counties did require timber
revenues to be maximized, that's no longer possible because
federal laws effectively impose limits on logging, said Scott
Kaplan, attorney for the state.

"That purpose, if there was such a purpose, can't be satisfied,"
he said.

This defense isn't valid because the lawsuit only seeks to recover
damages for lost revenues from lawfully harvested timber, argued
John DiLorenzo -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Oregon's reduction in timber harvest goes beyond what's required
by federal law, he said. "Honoring federal requirements is built
into the calculation of damages."

Oregon's "greatest permanent value" rule for managing state
forests, enacted in 1998, is blamed by plaintiffs for causing the
harvest reductions.

Attorneys for the state government say the "greatest permanent
value" rule conforms with Oregon law and the Oregon Department of
Forestry is complying with the rule, which is a valid defense to
the breach of contract claim.

DiLorenzo said the plaintiffs agree that the Department of
Forestry is following the rule, but they simply want to recover
damages resulting from that compliance.

"We're not seeking to void the rules," he said. [GN]


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA's Bid to Certify Class Due on Nov. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's motion for
class certification is due on November 3, 2017, Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's
March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint,
and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all
of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all
defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions
to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument
on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the
pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on
April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States
Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v.
Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all
defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under
either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within
30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint,
accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its
intention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second
amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the
proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or
similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The
proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown
Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of
internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and
financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation
of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court
granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its
second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016
Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case
(including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification)
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint
disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-
finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the
Commission. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on
September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the Commission resolving the
investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for
the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of
the settlement of the Commission's administrative proceedings and
pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, is former
Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief
Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the
Commission. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of
$1,000,000. The Company had previously established a reserve for
that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of
2016. In the settlement agreement with the Commission, the Company
also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections
17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A)
and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated
thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the
Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the
settlement with the Commission. The Notice attached a copy of the
Commission's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the
Company believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-
nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response
to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the
Commission did not support dismissal of the second amended
complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to
dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the
motions to dismiss the 1933 Securities Act claims against all
defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all
defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown
Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W.
Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the 1934
Securities Exchange Act section 20(a) claims against Quinn,
Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation. The Case Management
Order, among other things, sets the following deadlines: all fact
discovery closes on November 3, 2017, and SEPTA's motion for class
certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes
March 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by April 27,
2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for
September 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled for the month of
October 2018.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this
time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of
reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown
Bank (the "Bank") and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. ("Wheatland").
Based in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, the Parent Company was
organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose of acquiring the
Bank and such other banks and bank-related activities as are
permitted by law and desirable.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Michaeli" Parties Working on Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017, for
the quarter period ended January 31, 2017, that parties in the
lawsuit styled Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., are currently
negotiating a stipulation of settlement.

The Company said: "On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class
action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al.,
C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware (the "Court") against certain of our executive
officers and directors (collectively, the "Defendants"). On
December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental
derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their
respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly
improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors
during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including:
(i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii)
the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors,
executives, all other employees and certain consultants on
December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-
employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our
directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and
seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially
false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting
of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on
May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the Defendants on
December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive
compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for
our benefit.

The parties, having recently agreed in principle to settle the
Amended Complaint, are currently negotiating a stipulation of
settlement, which will then be subject to the final approval by
the Court.

The Company says it does not expect to incur a loss associated
with this matter should the Court approve the terms of the
proposed settlement.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
committed to improving the lives of patients by manufacturing high
quality pharmaceutical products through its contract manufacturing
business and through advancing and licensing its novel,
development-stage immunotherapy products.


PF CHANG'S: Anderson Moves for Certification of Action Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Anderson moves the Court for an order certifying the action
titled Jeremy Anderson, on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc., And
John Does #1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-14182-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
authorizing notice to the collective action class.

The action seeks overtime pay for Sous Chef workers, who worked
more than 40 hours per week and were not paid overtime at time and
one half, but were paid only straight time for certain hours for
which the Defendant gave them credit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jHSf0uL6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

               - and -

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


PFIZER: Could Face Class Suit Over Antidepressant for Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Cleary at Daily Mail Australia reports a mother who
watched as her 10-year-old son rocked in a corner of his room
begging for someone to kill him to end his misery has revealed how
anti-depressants turned her 'gentle, loving' son into angry and
suicidal young boy.

Sydney mother Donna is one of dozens of people involved in a class
action over the use of 'adult' antidepressants in children in
Australia.

The concerned mother spoke to Daily Mail Australia from beside her
son Seth's hospital bed on April 21 after he was admitted for
psychiatric care following multiple attempts to end his own life
while being weaned off the antidepressant Aropax.

'One day I came outside and he had a pair of scissors to his chest
-- he kept saying he was going to do it, so I had to call an
ambulance,' Donna said.

'He was cuffed by paramedics and at the hospital I had to watch as
he was held down by doctors, three security guards, nurses, and
his father so he could be sedated.

'He looked at me and said 'please don't let them do it mummy I
will be good' I will never forget that look on his face.'

Now, aged 10, he is in a psych ward of a Sydney hospital after a
devastating few months where he would go from 'rocking and crying
in the corner asking his parents to kill him', to trying to jump
out of his mother's moving car.

Brisbane mother Mel, 34, also revealed the devastating effect
antidepressants had on her daughter Maiya, now 13. The child, who
after taking the drugs at just six years old, started 'fantasising
about death'.

'I will never forget the moment she looked up to me and said
'mummy, I want to go with the angels now', it was just after an
episode which saw her crying for days,' Mel said.

The despairing mothers said they both 'feel like it is their
fault' for making their young children take the doctor-prescribed
pills.

But the lawyer running the proposed class action, Tony Nikolic,
told Daily Mail Australia he had heard the stories of up to 60
children who suffered severely after taking antidepressants.

'The complaints range from people who were given it from as young
as five -- to teenagers who were put on them,' he said.

The lawyer says the fact the two drugs are 'not recommended for
children' is little known.

'We know the 90 days coming on and 90 days coming off are the
worst times for these families -- as well as any time the dose is
changed- that is when there is most likely to be trouble.'
The product information on both drugs says they are not
recommended for children, but doctors continue to prescribe them.

Psychiatrist and Adelaide University research leader Doctor Jon
Jureidini told Daily Mail Australia the drugs are widely used to
treat anxiety in young children -- but there is 'no evidence
supporting it'.

He claims doctors are given 'contradictory information' from the
pharmaceutical companies -- which 'over the years have promoted
the use of antidepressants in children' despite the warnings on
the drugs which say use for children isn't recommended.

'There is information which suggests tens of thousands of young
people are on anti-depressants in Australia.

'With these so-called anti-depressants a small number of children
become suicidal and violent.

'With any drug used in children it should be monitored very
closely, and parents should get a second opinion,' he said.
Seth's mother Donna thought she was 'doing the right thing' by her
son when she gave him the drugs because she 'assumed the doctors
knew what they were talking about'.

He was diagnosed with separation anxiety and ADHD in March 2012,
when he was five, at the end of the year he was put on 20mg of
Aropax.

According to the company's product information 'when AROPAX was
tested in children under 18 years with major depressive disorder,
obsessive compulsive disorder or social anxiety, there were
additional unwanted effects to those seen in adults, such as
suicidal thoughts, hostile and unfriendly behaviour and changing
moods.

'The use of AROPAX is not recommended to treat major depressive
disorder in children under 18, as the drug has not been shown to
be effective in this age group. The long-term safety effects of
paroxetine in this age group have not yet been demonstrated.'

The drugs appeared to 'fix' the boy's anxiety when he was first
introduced to them.

'For five days he was almost euphoric. He had no fear or
inhibitions, he was busking, he was going to class, he was like a
normal child. I thought it was working.
'Then he started having fits laughter- even when he was in
trouble. Not long after that things started going wrong.'
Then the angry bursts started, which meant he became a problem at
school and could no longer attend.

'The smallest things would set him off it could be something
simple like asking him to have a bath or go brush his teeth.'
He became violent toward his mother and started hitting her and
trying to rip out her hair.

When he was nine, and his behaviour was deteriorating the family
decided he needed more help. Doctors doubled his dose of the drug.
'He was euphoric again and I thought I must have been wrong to
think it wasn't working the way they said it would. But then he
got way worse and I knew it was the medication. Seth's suicidal
tendencies got worse.

'His father called me one day and told me Seth needed me, by the
time I got to him he was in a ball, rocking in the corner yelling
"daddy please kill me I don't want to do this anymore" it was
absolutely heart-breaking, really hard to see your own child like
that,' she said.

'I never knew it wasn't for children, we were never told, if I had
I wouldn't have made him take it.'

Mel's daughter Maiya, 13, took Zoloft for seven years -- her
depression continued to spiral out of control so doctors gave her
more of the drug -- which her mother says just made her sicker.
The once bubbly little girl had her two sisters, Jazlyn, 12 and
Gemirah, seven, 'walking on eggshells every day'.

'I thought I was doing the right thing for her, I was just doing
what the doctors said, I thought I had lost my baby girl to
depression. Finding out the drugs I told her she had to have were
making her sad kills me,' Mel said.

'She would attack her sisters and scream and yell -- but what is
worse is when she would just cry.

'She cried for hours and hours and hours at a time it is heart-
breaking to see your baby do that and not know how to help.'
Then 12 months ago Mel stumbled across information on
antidepressants which revealed Zoloft, the drug her daughter had
been taking, was 'not recommended for children and could cause
suicidal thoughts'.

Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft has confirmed to Daily Mail Australia
that it should only be used for children aged 6 to 18 years of age
to treat obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

'I just burst into tears when I read it -- I showed my mum I
couldn't believe it. We weened her off Zoloft, which was really
tough but now she is a completely different kid.

'She is not angry and there is no aggression. We don't have
unhappy days anymore,' Mel said.

'She will always have anxiety but we can cope with that -- better
then all those days of uncertainty, unhappiness and utter sadness.
We never want to see that again.'

The young girl had 'given up on life' by the time her mother found
the information on Zoloft and had stopped going to school and
playing sport.

'By the time she was 10 she was cutting her hair every time she
got frustrated -- when we went to see doctors they would put up
her dose.

'I am only speaking out because I never want any parent to go
through what we have been through or to have their kids suffer
like this.

'I have seen a spark in her beautiful face that I though we lost a
long time ago.'

Mr. Nikolic has also looked into the possibility of a class action
for adults -- because they 'are not told it is so hard to get off'
and has had about 1,400 people contact him for that.

'This is a hard one as people don't know how to complain because
they are just one little person who have to try and prove their
case against a multi-billion dollar corporation.

'There is interest in both cases but I have a firm belief a case
for children for Aropax and Zoloft has a reasonable prospect of
success.'

The lawyer is looking for more people effected by antidepressants
after being diagnosed the drugs as children.

'We are looking for children who have demoniacal physical and
psychological disabilities -- Kids who took meds and are now in
jail or took meds and jumped off a balcony and are now
paraplegics.'

These cases could help move the proposed class action forward.
'The Australian court is difficult, instead of the corporation
having to prove they are right the little people have to prove the
medication is dangerous and whatever has happened was caused by
it.'

Pfizer the manufacturer of Zoloft and GSK the manufacturer of
Aropax have both been approached for comment by Daily Mail
Australia.

'Pfizer takes the safety of our medicines very seriously and we
are committed to ensuring the appropriate communication of
important safety information to health care professionals and
patients,' a spokesperson said.

'Zoloft (sertraline hydrochloride) is approved in Australia for
use in children with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) aged 6
years or older.

'Zoloft is not indicated for use in children and adolescents under
the age of 18 years for the treatment of any medical condition
other than OCD.'

GSK has not yet responded to our request.[GN]


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Seeks 20-Day Delay to Respond to "Newman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit captioned RONALD LEE NEWMAN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PHOENIX
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01422 (S.D.W. Va.), asks
the Court to enter an order granting Phoenix a 20-day extension of
time to respond to the complaint filed by the Plaintiff.

Phoenix asserts it is in the process of reviewing the file and
preparing a response.  Phoenix contends that it asks for the
extension so that it has additional time to complete its initial
investigation and properly respond to the Complaint.

Phoenix informs the Court that it has conferred with the
Plaintiff's counsel, who has indicated he does not object to a 20-
day extension of time for Phoenix to respond to the complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bJJg2rGp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven S. Broadwater, Esq.
          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
          HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
          P.O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574-2727
          E-mail: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
                  ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                  cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
                  jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          500 Virginia Street East, Suite 600
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          Telephone: (304) 720-0715
          Facsimile: (304) 343-3133
          E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Court OKs Stipulation to Toss "Dillard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
approves the parties' joint stipulation for the dismissal of the
lawsuit captioned Dillard v. Platform Specialty Products
Corporation, et al., according to the Company's March 13, 2017,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In March 2016, a class action lawsuit entitled Dillard v. Platform
Specialty Products Corporation, et al. was filed against Platform
and certain of its former and current executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging
material false and misleading statements relating to our business,
operational and compliance policies in light of certain past
business practices of Arysta's West Africa business, as disclosed
herein and in the 2015 Annual Report. In June 2016, the Court
appointed joint lead plaintiffs, and in July 2016, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with an expanded class
period but stating substantially similar claims to those contained
in the original complaint.

In September 2016, Platform filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss. On December 14, 2016, the parties submitted a joint
stipulation of dismissal, and on December 16, 2016, the Court
issued an order closing the case.

Platform Specialty Products Corporation, incorporated in Delaware
in January 2014, is a global diversified producer of high-
technology specialty chemical products.  The Company's chemistry
combines a number of ingredients to produce proprietary
formulations.


POM RECOVERIES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lennon" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael K. Lennon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. POM Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02243
(E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

POM Recoveries, Inc. operates an accounts receivable management
firm located at 85 E Hoffman Ave # 1, Lindenhurst, NY 11757. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Graham Moves to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DENISE GRAHAM, on her own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. PYRAMID
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-01324-JSM-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), moves for class certification pursuant to the Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed Background Check Class is defined as:

     All Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. employees and job
     applicants who applied for or worked in a position at
     Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. in the United States and
     who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured
     by Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. within two years of
     the filing of this complaint through the date of final
     judgment and as to whom Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
     used the employment application and purported disclosure and
     authorization form substantially similar to Exhibit A.

In her complaint, Ms. Graham alleges that the Defendant willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in multiple ways by, among
other things, procuring consumer reports for employment purposes
without first making proper disclosures in the format required by
the statute.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0WnEXiXy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Grant D. Peterson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-7231
          E-mail: Grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com


QUALITY THERAPY: Certification of Class Sought in "Kondati" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for certification of collective action, for
disclosure of potential opt-in plaintiffs' contact information and
court-approved notice in the lawsuit titled Sumana Kondati,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as
class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the
Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v.
Quality Therapy and Consultation, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01461
(N.D. Ill.).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


QUICK LANE: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Totte" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Avern Cohn grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in the lawsuit styled TOM TOTTE, CODY HITCH and JOHN
MERRELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. QUICK LANE OIL & LUBE, INC., a Michigan for-profit company, and
TALHA HARES, its owner, Case No. 2:16-cv-12850-AC-RSW (E.D.
Mich.).

The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective
action:

     All current and former employees who worked for the
     Defendants as oil change technicians within the last three
     years and who were not compensated for all hours worked
     including the one and one-half the regular rate for hours in
     excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Court says it will separately enter an order regarding
collective action procedures attached to which will be the form of
the opt-in notice to be sent to potential plaintiffs.  Within 30
days of entry of the decision, the Plaintiffs, after conferring
with the Defendants, will lodge with the Court a draft of the
proposed order and form of notice.

If there are objections, within 21 days of receipt, the Defendants
will lodge with the Court a redlined version with additions,
deletions or modifications to the text in another color.

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


RADIO RENTALS: Thorn CEO Quits Amid $50MM Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that Thorn Group chief executive James
Marshall has resigned suddenly from the company he has worked for
since 1993 and led since 2014 after its Radio Rentals business was
hit with a $50 million class action lawsuit over claims its "Rent,
Try, $1 Buy" deal misled consumers.

The publicly listed Thorn, which provides financial services to
consumers and businesses, announced at the weekend Mr Marshall
would depart after having reached a "mutually agreeable
separation, (allowing) Mr Marshall an opportunity to focus on
personal family matters while being available to support the
business for up to six months in line with his employment contract
as (the board) undertakes for a new managing director and CEO".

No mention was made of why Mr Marshall was leaving. Thorn's chief
financial officer, Peter Frosberg, has been appointed acting chief
executive until a permanent boss is identified.

Last month, Radio Rentals was hit with a $50m class action,
launched by Maurice Blackburn lawyers, which triggered a near 10
per cent slide in its share price.

Struggling Wagga Wagga mother of five Casey Simpson, who is
leading the class action, claims she paid Radio Rentals $3320 for
a used bed worth $480 and she still doesn't own it. She claims its
"Rent, Try, $1 Buy" contract misled her.

The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the
end of a 24, 36 or 48-month rental plan for an appliance or piece
of furniture, "you can make it yours for just $1".

But Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said that was not
correct, as customers do not automatically get to buy their rented
items outright for $1.  Instead the onus is on customers to
negotiate to buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed
by Radio Rentals. If customers fail to secure a purchase, their
contracts automatically roll over into another 24, 36 or 48-month
term.

Thorn Group shares last traded at $1.32, and are down more than 30
per cent since the beginning of the year.

In the ASX statement issued late on April 21, Mr Marshall said he
felt it was important to place the needs of his family as a
priority at this time.  "Thorn has been a significant part of my
life for the past 24 years and I consider myself fortunate to have
worked with such a talented, professional and passionate group of
people.  This is now a wonderful opportunity for someone to lead
the organisation through its next phase of evolution."

In March, Thorn was forced to make further provisions linked to an
investigation by ASIC into Radio Rental's responsible lending
obligations, forecasting a $4m hit to profit for the 12 months to
March 31.  It now expected full-year profit to be in the range of
$24m to $26m due to the provisions.


RED DOG: Faces "Us-Chab" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Red Dog
Restaurant, Ministry of Taste, LLC, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive.

The case is captioned Jose Us-Chab, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Red Dog Restaurant, Ministry of
Taste, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC 17
558164 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 13, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar in California.
[BN]


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Faces "Pacheco" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP. The case is captioned as Joanne Pacheco,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP and LVNV Funding,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02451 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 24,
2017).

Resurgent Capital manages and services domestic and international
consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIGHT PATH: "Benjamin" Labor Suit Alleges Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Benjamin, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Right Path Transportation Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation, Right Path Behavioral Health Services, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company, Don Jackson, Individually, and Robert
Releford, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00457-BJD-MCR
(M.D. Fla., April 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying Plaintiff and others
similarly situated as "independent contractors" and refusing to
pay them time and one-half of their regular rate for overtime
hours worked.

Right Path Transportation, Inc. provides transportation for Right
Path Behavioral Health Services LLC.  Right Path Behavioral Health
Services, LLC provides behavioral health and therapeutic services
in the community.  Plaintiff was hired to work as a driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angeli Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954 318 0268
     Fax: 954 327 3016


ROCK FISH: Faces "Oliva" Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARTINEZ OLIVA, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. ROCK FISH, LLC, a California
limited liability company; ROCK 'N FISH 2, LLC, a California
limited liability company, THE ZISLIS GROUP, INC., a California
corporation; ZISLIS BOUTIQUE HOTELS, LLC, a California limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 658207 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 18,
2017), alleges failure to provide required meal periods, failure
to provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties, and unfair and unlawful business
practices.

Rock Fish LLC is in the seafood restaurants business.  PLAINTIFF
filed the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
current and former non-exempt employees of DEFENDANTS. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310)531-1900
     Fax: (310)531-1901
     E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
             tagore@matemlawgroup.com


RURAL/METRO: Faces Suit for Denying Crews Rest Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Kreuger at NBC San Diego reports that a recently filed
federal court lawsuit alleges that the City of San Diego's
emergency medical provider, Rural/Metro, has systematically denied
its ambulance crews state-required rest breaks.

An attorney for Rural/Metro's paramedics and EMTs says the lack of
those 10 minute breaks, which are required every four hours for
non-salaried employees in California, endangers patients' lives
and health.

"Employees who are tired, who are not given a chance to recuperate
every so often, are not as careful and make mistakes," employment
law specialist Harvey Berger told NBC 7 Investigates.

According to the lawsuit, from 2013 to at least February of this
year, Rural/Metro required crews to "remain on-call at all times
and were required to carry pagers, cell phones, radios, or other
electronic devices, to keep those devices on, and to remain
vigilant and responsive to calls when the need arose," in
violation of the state labor code.

The lawsuit is filed as a class-action, and if approved by the
court, it will cover all Rural/Metro ambulance crews in
California.

One document filed in the case reveals that that Rural/Metro's
California crews worked more than 600,000 shifts at an average
wage of USD17.50 per hour. Because the state requires employers to
pay workers a full hour's pay for every missed rest break,
Rural/Metro faces penalties of more than USD10 million, if the
plaintiff's prevail in this legal action.

"The law in California has been clear for many years," Berger
said. "The penalty is one hour a day if you miss a meal period and
one hour a day if you miss your rest period."

But Berger said giving paramedics and EMTs the state-mandated
stress-relieving rest breaks is more important than the money they
might be owed.

"Do you want an ambulance, a paramedic or an EMT to make a mistake
when they're taking care of you or your family?" he asked
rhetorically.

In a court filing, Rural Metro denied it violates labor laws.
A spokeswoman for Rural Metro's parent company, Envision
Healthcare, told NBC 7 Investigates, "It is our policy to not
comment on pending litigation. However, we are confident that we
comply with all local, state and federal laws." [GN]


PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Shabu" Suit Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
AHMED SHABU and PARVEZ LATIF, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against PETROSSIAN
RESTAURANTS, INC., PETROSSIAN BOUTIQUE, INC., ARMEN PETROSSIAN,
ARNAUD THIEFFRY, and ALEXANDRE PETROSSIAN, Defendants, INDEX NO.
507622/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Kings, April 18, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, alleged
misappropriated tips, spread-of-hours pay, and other damages for
Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers -- servers,
bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and other similarly
situated non-managerial employees (collectively, "Tipped Workers")
-- who work or have worked at the Petrossian New York Restaurant
and the Petrossian Cafe and Boutique, both located at 182 West
58lh Street, New York, New York 10019.  The case was filed under
the New York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Petrossian restaurants have operated worldwide for almost a
century. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 300-0375

        - and -

     Jeffrey H. Dorfinan, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 300-0375

The Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
     100 Park Avenue, Suite 1500
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 878-7983
     E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Judge Tosses Pollution Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda J. Lyons at Times Union reports a lawsuit that alleged the
value of a 12-acre grocery store property in Hoosick Falls was
diminished by the actions of two companies blamed for polluting
water supplies in that area has been thrown out by a judge in
Rensselaer County.

State Supreme Court Justice Patrick J. McGrath ruled there was no
actual physical harm to the property and that the stigma of the
water pollution is not enough to support a claim under New York
law.

The suit, which sought USD2.1 million in damages, was filed last
year by a partnership that owns the property housing a Tops
grocery market in Hoosick Falls. The partnership, Hoosick Falls
Associates, said in the claim that it listed its property on Route
22 for sale two years ago but three "interested buyers" backed
away when the pollution crisis was revealed, and no others have
shown interest in the property. The lawsuit said the market value
of the site was USD2.1 million, but is now "substantially
diminished, if not rendered altogether valueless."

"The complaint does not allege that plaintiff's soil or water has
been exposed or contaminated by any harmful substances or
materials," McGrath wrote in his decision. "The only harm claimed
by the plaintiff is the stigma itself, and the only 'actual
interference' is the POET (water filtration system), which
plaintiff claims adds to the stigma. ... However, stigma has never
itself been held to constitute an 'injury' itself sufficient to
support a negligence cause of action."

Tops has about 154 stores in New York. It is Hoosick Falls' only
local grocery store and was used as a distribution center for the
free bottled water given to residents after they were urged in
December 2015 to stop drinking the village's water. A person
familiar told the Times Union previously that Tops has a long-term
lease for the site and if the property sold any new owner would
take over that contract.

The free bottled water that has been supplied to residents at the
store was paid for by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, which is
a defendant in the lawsuit and owns a manufacturing plant on
McCaffrey Street, near the village's underground well fields, that
has been a focus of the contamination. Saint-Gobain has owned the
plant since 1999.

"We are pleased Judge McGrath agreed with us that this case had no
legal merit," said Dina Silver Pokedoff, a spokeswoman for Saint-
Gobain.  [GN]


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc., awaits ruling on motions to dismiss
a consolidated merger-related lawsuit pending in Delaware, the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company was formed on June 5, 2015, for the purpose of
effecting the merger of Singer Merger Sub, Inc. with and into
SQBG, Inc. (previously known as Sequential Brands Group, Inc.)
(SEC File No. 001-36082) ("Old Sequential") and the merger of
Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. with and into MSLO (SEC File No. 001-
15395), with Old Sequential and MSLO each surviving the merger as
wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company (the "Mergers"). Prior to
the Mergers, the Company did not conduct any activities other than
those incidental to its formation and the matters contemplated in
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015, as
amended, by and among MSLO, Old Sequential, the Company, Singer
Merger Sub, Inc., and Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Merger
Agreement").

On December 4, 2015, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Old
Sequential and MSLO completed the strategic combination of their
respective businesses and became wholly owned subsidiaries of the
Company. Old Sequential was the accounting acquirer in the
Mergers; therefore, the historical consolidated financial
statements for Old Sequential for periods prior to the Mergers are
considered to be the historical financial statements of Sequential
Brands Group, Inc. and thus, the Company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2015 reflect Old Sequential's consolidated
financial statements for period from January 1, 2015 through
December 4, 2015 and for fiscal year 2014, and Sequential Brand
Group Inc.'s thereafter.

In connection with the merger, the following 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit Sharing
Plan f/b/o David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et
al., filed on June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on June 26, 2015; (3) Daniel
Lisman v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on
June 29, 2015; (4) Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold Litwin v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on July 5,
2015; (6) Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart, filed on July 7,
2015; (7) Cedric Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.
et al., filed on July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on July 8, 2015; (9) Paul
Dranove v. Pierre De Villemejane. et al., filed on July 8, 2015;
(10) Phuc Nguyen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et al.,
filed on July 10, 2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et al., filed on July 16, 2015; (12) Karen
Gordon v. Martha Stewart et al., filed on July 27, 2015 against
the MSLO Board of Directors, Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub,
Singer Merger; and (13) Anne Seader v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. et al., filed on July 28, 2015. All of the 13
class action lawsuits name the Old Sequential, MSLO, the MSLO
board of directors, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger Sub,
Inc. and the Company as defendants and allege that (a) members of
the MSLO board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and
(b) Old Sequential, MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc., Singer Merger
Sub Inc. and the Company aided and abetted such alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the MSLO board of directors.

On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On January 12,
2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the plaintiffs filed
a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, naming Ms.
Martha Stewart, the Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub,
Inc. and Singer Merger Sub, Inc. and alleging that (a) Ms. Stewart
breached her fiduciary duties to MSLO's stockholders and (b) the
Company, Old Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. and Singer
Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted Ms. Stewart's breach of her
fiduciary duties.

On April 4, 2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential defendants filed
respective motions to dismiss the Verified Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. On June 15, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs sought
leave to amend the complaint and file the Verified Second Amended
Class Action Complaint, which Judge Slights granted on July 14,
2016. On July 18, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second
Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants, asserting that
Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties and asserting that
Sequential, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub, and Holdings
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

On July 28, 2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential defendants filed
respective motions to dismiss the Verified Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. On October 26, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss. On November 29,
2016, Ms. Stewart and the Sequential Defendants filed reply briefs
in further supports of their motions to dismiss the Verified
Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Oral argument on the
motions to dismiss has been scheduled for March 22, 2017. The
plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly sustained
by the plaintiffs, restitution and disgorgement by Ms. Stewart,
the recovery of plaintiffs' attorney's fees and other relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims made by the plaintiffs, and it is vigorously defending such
claims. Litigation costs in this matter may be significant. The
Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material effect on its consolidated financial
statements.

                           *     *     *

Jeff Montgomery, writing for Law360, reported on March 22, that a
Delaware vice chancellor said at a hearing that new case law could
get cobbled together from arguments over public investor claims
that domestic guru Martha Stewart got an unfair share of her
company's $353 million sale to Sequential Brands.  Vice Chancellor
Joseph R. Slights III noted the possible outcome at the end of
afternoon arguments that saw attorneys for the class, Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. and Sequential point to an
assortment of past cases to support their positions, none
perfectly.

"I think there is certainly a possibility here of actually making
some new law, regardless of the direction that I go," the vice
chancellor said after an afternoon dismissal argument. "Both sides
think their positions are better grounded in existing law. That's
what good advocates should say. But it's not firmly grounded on
either side in existing law."

Terms of MSLO's $6.15 per share sale in December 2015 to
Sequential and consideration received by Stewart, MSLO's
controlling shareholder, gave rise to 13 investor complaints,
consolidated into a single action in January 2016.

The complaints claimed that Stewart breached her duty to the
company and public stockholders by negotiating side deals during
the merger talks at the expense of minority public shareholders.
The terms with Sequential included her continued employment,
valuable rights to register stock for later public sale and
reimbursement of her $4 million fee for merger advisers.

"It's enough that the decision to pay something different to the
controller may have had an effect on the price, and I think we've
alleged that here," sufficient to survive a dismissal motion,
class attorney James S. Notis of Gardy & Notis LLP said.

"Your theory is, she's getting more than she should be getting,
and that, therefore, is diverting consideration from the merger?"
Vice Chancellor Slights said. "How does that play out down the
road. How am I to measure that?"

Notis said the court needs to look at the total package of
consideration, and the diversion from the other stockholders,
instead of a piecemeal examination.

MSLO attorney Paul K. Rowe of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz said
that even if the merger's details trigger a requirement for
heightened "entire fairness" scrutiny, "the entire fairness claim
reverts to being a business judgment claim and must be dismissed
if the court is satisfied that the transaction was approved by
properly functioning special committee, and by a majority of the
minority" public stockholders.

Both safeguards apply, Rowe said, noting that MSLO did empanel a
special committee. He also said that Sequential, or any another
prospective buyer, would have wanted Stewart to continue working
after the merger as the face and creative director of the
business.

"You're not arguing that in this case, because she has unique and
intrinsic value to the company, that in some way lessens her
fiduciary duty to the stockholders?" Vice Chancellor Slights
asked.

Notis said that even a controlling shareholder is not required to
sacrifice his or her personal economic interests

Vice Chancellor Slights, however said the timing and stages of the
merger's developments, negotiations and disclosures and the effect
on potential conflicts was not yet fully clear and not aligned
with the roadmap of other merger cases involving controlling
shareholders.

"You're asking me to chart some new territory here," the Vice
Chancellor said.

Sequential attorney Mitchell A. Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP said that Sequential initially offered $6.20 per share,
reduced the offer to $5.75 after a proposed publishing company
renegotiation fell through.

Terms were increased to $6.15, but only after Stewart negotiated
her part of the deal, in an overall transaction disclosed in a
proxy and approved by a special review committee.

Facts of the case, Karlan said, fail to support class allegations
that Sequential knowingly aided or abetted a duty failure by
Stewart. They also leave an inaccurate impression, he said, that
"we went back to our sharp pencils and green eyeshades and said
'Oops. We better cut back'" on the public stockholder share  after
reaching agreement with Stewart.

Notis said the aiding and abetting claim was supported by the fact
of Sequential's awareness of Stewart's conflict, and the fact that
she was receiving something different from other stockholders,
after an "unusual" negotiation that involved no classic back-and-
forth offers.

Vice Chancellor said he would most likely issue a ruling from the
bench after taking the arguments under advisement.

Stewart is represented by Paul K. Rowe of Wachtell Lipton Rosen &
Katz and Kevin R. Shannon, Matthew F. Davis and Mathew A. Golden
of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Sequential Brands is represented by Mitchell A. Karlan and Lauren
Sager of Gibson Dunn and John L. Reed, Ethan H. Townsend and
Harrison S. Carpenter of DLA Piper LLP.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long,
Gina M. Serra and Jeremy J. Riley of Rigrodsky & Long P.A., James
S. Notis and Meagan Farmer of Gardy & Notis LLP, Evan J. Smith and
Marc L. Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith LLC and Gustavo F. Bruckner of
Pomerantz LLP.

Sequential Brands Group, Inc., owns a portfolio of consumer brands
in the fashion, home, athletic and lifestyle categories, including
Martha Stewart, Jessica Simpson, AND1, Avia, Joe's Jeans, Heelys
and GAIAM.  The Company owns, manages, and maximizes the long-term
value of a diversified portfolio of global consumer brands.


SODEXO INC: Lazo's First Motion for Class Certification Mooted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF, NY'COLE YOUNG
THOMAS, and all others similarly situated v. SODEXO, INC., Case
No. 1:15-cv-13366-GAO (D. Mass.):

   * mooting the Plaintiffs' first motion for class
     certification;

   * denying the defendant's Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs'
     Amended Motion for Class Certification; and

   * ruling that the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs'
     Amended Motion for Class Certification is due within 21 days
     of the Order, and any reply by the Plaintiffs is due 14 days
     thereafter.

"Regardless of what the Court intended with respect to the various
deadlines, the only thing that is clear from the current posture
of the case is that the resolution of the scheduling issues
surrounding class certification was unclear.  While the better --
and most cost-efficient -- course would have been for the parties
simply to seek clarification before engaging in further motion
practice, the Court takes plaintiffs' counsel at their word
regarding their understanding of the purported ambiguities and
therefore finds good cause to consider the plaintiffs' amended
certification motion as timely filed and the original motion
replaced," Judge O'Toole opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DF0xAX3q


SIENTRA INC: Final Hearing for Settlement Approval Set for May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a final hearing for the
approval of its settlement of a consolidated stockholder lawsuit
is scheduled for May 31, 2017.

On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the
Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names
the Company and certain of its officers as defendants, or the
Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  The plaintiff seeks damages and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection on lead counsel.  On December 10, 2015,
the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and
approving their selection of lead counsel.  On February 19, 2016,
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, which
added claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated with the
Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23,
2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. On March 21, 2016, the
Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a
motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the consolidated
amended complaints. On April 20, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Motions to Dismiss, and the Sientra Defendants
and Underwriter Defendants filed separate replies on May 5, 2016.
On June 9, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Motions to Dismiss.  On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants
moved the court to reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the
Motions to Dismiss in full. On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On August
12, 2016, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, and the
Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed an
answer to the consolidated amended complaint.

On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits
styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.
The lawsuits name the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as
defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's
offering documents associated with the follow-on offering
concerning its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs
seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees. On December 4, 2015, defendants removed
all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  On December 15 and December 16,
2015, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San
Mateo Superior Court, or the Motions to Remand.  On January 19,
2016, defendants filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand,
and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Motions to
Remand on January 26, 2016.

On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to Remand, and
the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded cases on May
27, 2016.  On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court
consolidated the three lawsuits.  On August 2, 2016, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to stay all proceedings in favor of the class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the
San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Central District of California signed a memorandum of
understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a
settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide
relief. On September 13, 2016 and September 20, 2016,
respectively, the parties filed notices of settlement in both
courts. On September 22, 2016, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California stayed that action pending
the court's approval of a settlement. On September 23, 2016, the
San Mateo Superior Court stayed that action as well pending the
court's approval of a settlement.

On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs in the federal court action
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.  On January 23, 2017, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California preliminarily approved the
settlement. A final approval hearing in that court is scheduled
for May 22, 2017.  On January 5, 2017, the plaintiffs in the state
court action also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. On February 7, 2017, the San Mateo
Superior Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

A final approval hearing in that court is scheduled for May 31,
2017.  The settlement is contingent upon final approval by both
the San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

As a result of these developments, the Company has determined a
probable loss has been incurred and has recognized a net charge to
earnings of approximately $1.6 million within general and
administrative expense which is comprised of the loss contingency
of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds
of approximately $9.4 million. The Company has classified the loss
contingency as "legal settlement payable" and the expected
insurance proceeds as "insurance recovery receivable" on the
accompanying condensed balance sheets. While it is possible that
the Company may incur a loss greater than the amounts recognized
in the accompanying financial statements, the Company is unable to
determine a range of possible losses greater than the amount
recognized.

Sientra, Inc., is a medical aesthetics company committed to making
a difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image,
growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence.  The
Company's primary products are silicone gel breast implants for
use in breast augmentation and breast reconstruction procedures,
which the Company offers in approximately 400 variations of
shapes, sizes, fill volumes and textures.


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Knutson Moves for Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the classes described in
the lawsuit captioned JEAN KNUTSON, PETER LOVELAND and ABEL MEZA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00456-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
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).

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, the
Plaintiffs state.  They assert that they are obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiffs note.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion 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.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representative
and further ask the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t7z8EMmW

The Plaintiffs are 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


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Class Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in Nevada, according to
the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed
September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central
District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni
Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court,
District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the
"Hartsock Action"). On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was
transferred to the United States District Court, District Court of
Nevada. The parties have stipulated to the consolidation of the
Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. These class action lawsuits
allege that the Company and certain of its executive officers made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the Company's business and the prospects of approval
for the Company's NDA to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of
Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs
seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified equitable relief.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The value of a
potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its
highly uncertain nature as of December 31, 2016.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a
primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and
commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage
clinical and commercial products.  The Company has an in-house
clinical development organization with regulatory and data
management capabilities, a commercial infrastructure, and a field
sales force for the Company's marketed products.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: "Perry" Claims Administration Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it paid a portion of
the settlement in the consolidated lawsuit initiated by John
Perry, while the remainder is subject to the on-going claims
administrative process.

John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March
14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case
Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH). This consolidated class action
raises substantially identical claims and allegations against
defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C.
Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged
class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits
allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a
violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem
from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, which announced
an anticipated change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. On October
27, 2015, the Company reached a $7 million settlement in principle
with the lead plaintiff (which involved the Company's insurance
carrier, as the reimbursing party in full). On June 13, 2016, the
Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement,
a portion of which has been paid as of December 31, 2016, while
the remainder is subject to the on-going claims administrative
process.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a
primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and
commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage
clinical and commercial products.  The Company has an in-house
clinical development organization with regulatory and data
management capabilities, a commercial infrastructure, and a field
sales force for the Company's marketed products.


TABATCHNICK FINE: Faces "Ramsaran" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tabatchnick Fine
Foods Inc. The case is entitled as Jerome Ramsaran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Tabatchnick Fine Foods Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60794-DPG (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

Tabatchnick Fine is a soup manufacturer based in Somerset, New
Jersey. It was founded by Louis Tabatchnick of Newark, New Jersey.
He started a chain of restaurants in 1895, followed by the company
in 1905.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky, Esq.
          500 S. Australian Avenue Suite 600
          West Palm Beach, FL 33410
          Telephone: (305) 905 7406
          E-mail: korolinsky@outlook.com


TARGET CORP: Class Actions Lawyers Get Big Slice of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa A. Holyoak, writing for Com, reports that imagine a family
dinner table where Dad is deciding how large a piece of pie each
of his three children get.  All three children are good and
deserving. But Dad first takes a generous slice for himself --
more than a third of the pie -- and then gives the rest to his
favorite child. The rest of the kids get nothing.

This is akin to what happened in a class action lawsuit stemming
from Target's infamous data breach in 2013, in which credit card
and other identifying information was exposed to hackers. Class
counsel settled the case with Target, but took 40% of the
settlement for themselves in attorneys' fees and then gave the
rest to one group of class members, those who could readily file a
claim for losses associated with the data breach.  There were
several other groups of class members -- people with future-
damages claims or statutory-damages claims -- who got zilch.

Not only is that unfair, it's illegal.  The law protects class
members from class counsel picking favorites.  Rule 23, which
governs the procedure and conduct of class action lawsuits brought
in federal courts, requires that when there are groups of class
members with conflicting interests (like class members with
different legal claims, e.g., present- v. future-damages claims),
those groups must be separately represented with separate legal
counsel. Clearly, that requirement is an effort to make sure all
interests are represented and no one is treated unfairly.

In the Target case, a judge will decide whether or not self-
serving lawyers will get away with hoarding the settlement pie for
themselves and a small portion of class members.  In February, the
federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Competitive
Enterprise Institute client Leif Olson that the district court had
failed to consider whether there was, in fact, an intraclass
conflict in this case. On May 10, CEI will argue to the district
court that class certification should be denied because separate
legal counsel is needed for these subgroups of class members.
Separate legal counsel could represent the respective interests of
these subgroups and make the most compelling arguments for why
these class members should receive something more than the nothing
they're slated to get.

The outcome of the Target case is important, not just to the
people harmed by the data breach but to class action fairness more
broadly.  Unfortunately, the situation in Target is far from
unique.  This sort of abuse goes on all the time.  It's time to
restore justice and fairness in our nation's legal system, and
this case would be a valuable step in the right direction.

The case is In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, 14-md-2522-PAM (D. Minn.).


TELIGENT INC: Faces NECA-IBEW Welfare Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teligent, Inc. The
case is styled as NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; CESAR CASTILLO, INC.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED 16-
9592; and FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED 16-9475, the Plaintiffs, v. TELIGENT, INC.,
PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., and TARO
PHARMACEUTICAL USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01843-
CMR (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe.

Teligent, Inc. is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Terrianne A. Benedetto, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water St 26th Fl
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584 0700
          cseeger@seegerweiss.com
          TBenedetto@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park
          220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 482 5222
          E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com

               - and -

          John D. Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM
          34 Sunset Blvd
          Long Beach, NJ 08008
          Telephone: (646) 245 8502
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katelyn O'Reilly, Esq.
          Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Blvd., 6th Flr.
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 757 1100

               - and -

          David Neil Cinotti, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          1270 Avenue Of The Americas
          24th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 307 -5500
          E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com


TESLA INC: Faces "Sheikh" Consumer Fraud Suit Over Model S Sedan
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN SHEIKH, JOHN KELNER, and TOM MILONE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESLA, INC.
d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-02193-NC (N.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), is a complaint
for alleged violation of state consumer fraud acts, fraud by
concealment, and unjust enrichment in relation to the defendant's
sale of its Model S sedan that it claims to have "Standard Safety
Features" and Autopilot capabilities.

Tesla designs and manufactures the Model S electric sedan and the
Model X electric SUV. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Phone: (510) 725-3000
     Fax: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
     Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
             toml@hbsslaw.com
             robf@hbsslaw.com


UBER: Delhi Court Prohibits Drivers' Unions to Disrupt Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anil Padmanabhan, writing for Mint, reports that the Delhi high
court threw a spanner in the plans of taxi drivers' unions in
Delhi to disrupt services offered by aggregators Ola and Uber.

The high court reiterated its earlier order prohibiting the unions
from forcibly confiscating the mobile devices in the taxis.

Predictably, the strike fizzled out.

While this was the case, the entire episode put the spotlight on
an interesting facet of the share economy: the challenges of an
on-demand workforce, a digital proletariat as it were.

Yes, while the new economy developed on a peer-to-peer
relationship does bring with it greater efficiencies, it
completely overturns the traditional relationship between labour
and capital.

From the point of view of labour, while it endows them with
unprecedented flexibility, it severely crimps their ability to
organize class action protests, like what would happen in the past
-- some may recall the historic textile mills strike in the early
1980s.

Something of that scale is impossible in the new economy.

This backdrop does inject an element of inequity into the
employer-employee relationship in a share economy.  In the event
of a disagreement, the mode of engagement cannot assume
traditional contours.

Part of the reason is that the assets in the business of taxi
services in the share economy are not owned by the aggregator;
instead, it is owned by the driver -- effectively transforming
them into micro entrepreneurs.

So, while it was relatively easy to lay siege to the asset owned
by the mill owner in the event of a textile strike, it is not true
of taxi drivers working for an aggregator.

And the high court ruling nixed any ideas that the unions may have
had in forcing the taxi aggregators to come back to the
negotiating table.

It is some coincidence that the setback to the taxi drivers of
Delhi comes just under a fortnight ahead of 1 May, International
Labour Day or May Day, as it has come to be known popularly.

It is a tradition dating back to the 19th century, evolving around
the struggles of American workers for better work conditions; and
has since become a global day of celebration for the working
class.

The decline of organized unions -- in the backdrop of shrinking
mass-based industries such as textiles, automation and the
preference of employers for contract employment -- has severely
dented the normal enthusiasm for celebrations; if anything, it has
been reduced to tokenism.

But the recent setback suffered by the taxi drivers signals that
an entirely new paradigm is in the making.  Even Karl Marx, who
fashioned the word proletariat and the rallying cry of "workers of
the world unite", imagined life for the working class in the new
economy.

From a scenario, say in my father's generation, of holding tenure
and working a single job till retirement, we transcended into a
world of hopping from one salaried job to another.  The emergence
of the share economy is now transforming this workforce into an
army of self-employed.

Not only is this a challenge to the new-age workers, it is also a
poser for labour policy.

At present, benefits such as pension and provident fund (which
make up the basic social safety net) are restricted to the
organized worker -- which is less than 10% of the total workforce.

In the new era of the digital proletariat -- self-employed instead
of drawing a salary -- even this will be precluded.

The big question is, who will bear this social cost?

The aggregators will claim that they are mere technology companies
who are just providing a matchmaking platform for drivers and
customers.

And the workers are in no position to force the issue.

The larger problem is that existing labour laws do not even
recognize the new worker-employee relationship, leave alone
ascribing responsibilities.

Clearly, there is a challenge in the making.

For now, one can kick the proverbial can down the road, but not
wish away the problem. For starters there should be a national
debate on this issue and the ideal platform would be Parliament.

Anil Padmanabhan is executive editor of Mint and writes every week
on the intersection of politics and economics.


URBAN SPACE: Faces "McClendon" Lawsuit Under New York Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG McCLENDON individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were formerly or are presently employed by
URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE
230 PARK LLC, and ELDON SCOTT and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND
CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and ELDON COTT, Plaintiffs,
against URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND
CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and ELDON SCOTT and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by URBAN SPACE WORKS
LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and
ELDON SCOTT, Defendants, INDEX NO. 153586/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County
of New York, April 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants have engaged
in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, without providing all required
overtime compensation as required by applicable state law and
failing to pay their employees for an additional one hour of time
at the minimum wage rate for all days during which the spread of
hours exceeded ten hours or a split shift occurred.  The case was
filed under the New York Labor Law and New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations.

Defendants operate a business engaged in organizing, promoting,
and managing local retail and culinary markets including, but not
limited to the UrbanSpace, Dekalb Market in Brooklyn, and Mad. Sq.
Eats, Broadway Bites, and the Holiday Markets at Union Square and
Columbus Circle in Manhattan.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants'
market locations as a security employee, cleaner, and maintenance
worker. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     Alison L. Genova, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: "Mollicone" Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Mollicone, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. Universal Handicraft, Inc., doing business as:
Deep Sea Cosmetics and doing business as: Adore Organic
Innovations, and Shay Sabag Segev, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-07322, was transferred on April 20, 2017 from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21468-RNS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Universal Handicraft was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of
merchandise.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey David Feldman, Esq.
          Susan Joy Latham, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          2 South Biscayne Blvd., 30th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 5001
          Facsimile: (305) 358 3309
          E-mail: jfeldman@cozen.com
                  slatham@cozen.com


US RX CARE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses With Prejudice "Dees" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 29, 2017, in the case styled
Michelle Dees, et al. v. US RX Care, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-11154 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, the action is dismissed with prejudice;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot;
      and

   -- Status hearing set for May 1, 2017, is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XCnPKOZP



VALHI INC: NL Industries Defends Suits Over Use of Lead Pigments
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., continues to
defend lawsuits arising from use of lead pigments in paints,
according to the Company's March 13, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

NL's former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments
for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other former
manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead
Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment
rulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants or
the plaintiffs.

NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends
to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability
and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe
it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to
all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party,
and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in this
regard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:

   * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional
     tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of
     warranty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and
     abetting, enterprise liability, or statutory cases,

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against NL, and

   * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to
     any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
     twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and
     for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of
     liability.

The Company said: "Accordingly, neither we nor NL have accrued any
amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint
litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities
or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those
asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that
liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no
substantive information available upon which an estimate could be
based."

"In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 NL was served
with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of
California government entities against the former pigment
manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County
of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds
the plaintiffs have expended or would in the future expend for
medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs
due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,
disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages. In July 2003, the
trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining
claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court
reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and
fraud claims in March 2006.  A fourth amended complaint was filed
in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County
Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and
Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego
and Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of lead
paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting
jurisdictions and sought its abatement. In July and August 2013,
the case was tried. In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment
finding NL, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery
Products Company jointly and severally liable for the abatement of
lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an
aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California
to fund such abatement. In February 2014, NL filed a motion for a
new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion.
Subsequently in March 2014, NL filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the
appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. NL believes that
this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is
unsupported by the evidence, and NL will defend vigorously against
all claims."

"The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time
that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been
entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was
ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against NL, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld). In addition, liability that may result,
if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no
basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as
discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is
no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is
reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process,
that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position and liquidity."

"New cases may continue to be filed against NL. We cannot assure
you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of
any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent
uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future,
if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us
(such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or
otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such
matters), at that time we would consider such information in
evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to
whether it might then have become probable we have incurred
liability with respect to these matters, and whether such
liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The
resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition
of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse
impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during
which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact
on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity."

Valhi, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is primarily a
holding company.  The Company operates through its wholly-owned
and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc.,
Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc. and Waste Control
Specialists LLC.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Antitrust Suits vs. Huntsman Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits alleging Huntsman Corporation violated
antitrust laws remain pending, according to Venator Materials
Corporation's March 14, 2017, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The board of directors of Huntsman Corporation ("Huntsman")
approved the spin-off of our Pigments & Additives segment as a
separate, publicly traded company, which has been named Venator
Materials Corporation ("Venator").

Huntsman said: "We were named as a defendant in consolidated class
action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that
we, our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired
to fix prices of TiO2 sold in the U.S. between at least March 1,
2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter
were E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), Kronos and
Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court
certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased
TiO2 directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since
February 1, 2003. On December 13, 2013, we and all other
defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court
approved the settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount
immaterial to our financial statements."

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. On February
26, 2016, we reached an agreement to settle the Opt-Out Litigation
and subsequently paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to
our financial statements."

"We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers") making
essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On
October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2.
On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint.
A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29,
2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural
paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of
nine states, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16
states. On November 4, 2015, we and our co-defendants filed
another motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2016, the court
substantially denied the motion to dismiss except as to consumer
protection claims in one state. The parties are negotiating a
resolution to this action."

"On August 23, 2016, we were named as a defendant in a fourth
civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by an Indirect Purchaser, Home
Depot. Home Depot is an Indirect Purchase primarily through paints
it purchases from various manufacturers. Home Depot makes the same
claims as the Direct and Indirect Purchasers and seeks treble
damages for its increased costs from purchasing paint."

"These Indirect Purchasers seek to recover injunctive relief,
treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs
of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal
conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have
incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional
costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us.
Because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have
not made a material accrual with respect to these claims."


VIRGINIA: Drivers Want Judge to Reverse DMV Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that plaintiffs in a recently
dismissed class-action lawsuit against the commissioner of the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles are asking a federal judge
to reverse his decision to drop the case.

The Daily Progress reports attorneys from the Legal Aid Justice
Center said in an April 10 filing that Judge Norman Moon's
decision to drop the case was based on "mistakes of facts and
law."  Attorneys say the mistakes regard how license suspensions
are ordered and how records of suspensions are kept.

The Legal Aid Justice Center filed the lawsuit against the DMV on
behalf of low-income drivers who lost their license for failing to
pay court debts.

Judge Moon wrote in his March 13 opinion that state courts -- not
his court -- have jurisdiction on the matter.


VIRGINIA: Jail Wants Court to Weigh in on Wrongful Death Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for Daily Progress, reports that counsel for
the Central Virginia Regional Jail is asking a federal judge to
have the Supreme Court of Virginia weigh in on an essential
question in a wrongful death allegation against the Orange
facility.

Earlier this month, attorney Helen E. Phillips filed a motion
asking for the state's highest court to consider whether the jail
and its employees, as arms of the state government, are entitled
to immunity from lawsuits over violations of state law.

Ms. Phillips argues the answer to that question would help resolve
a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed in June 2015 by Sherry
Thornhill, the mother of former CVRJ inmate Shawn Christopher
Berry. On August 7, 2014, Berry was arrested on outstanding
warrants and brought to the CVRJ, where he died two days later
from the effects of alcohol and heroin.

While Berry's death was ruled an accident, Ms. Thornhill filed a
$22.5 million wrongful death suit against the jail; its then-
superintendent, Glenn Aylor; and several other jail staffers for
the "deliberate torture and killing" of her son.  She alleged that
the staffers were aware of the withdrawals Berry would be
suffering, but acted with indifference to his pain.

The original complaint, which detailed Berry's deterioration over
the two-day span, accused Mr. Aylor of creating a "culture of
deliberate indifference" to the medical needs of inmates, and
alleged that his retirement in June 2015 was actually an
"ousting."

Last year, a judge ruled that the case could not be considered a
class-action suit, and that six jail employees, including five
non-medical officers, should be excluded as defendants. The rest
of the suit was allowed to go forward, with the judge finding
"sufficient factual allegations" to support the claim that the
jail operated with a "policy of deliberate indifference."

In her April 4 filing, Ms. Phillips argues that the wrongful death
claim could be resolved by the Virginia Supreme Court's
determination of whether the defendants are entitled to sovereign
or governmental immunity under the laws of the state.

The filing states that neither the state's Supreme Court nor its
appellate court has affirmed whether those protections apply to
jail authorities, and that there is disagreement between the
eastern and western districts of Virginia as to whether regional
jails should get immunity as municipal corporations.

In a motion filed last on April 25, Ms. Thornhill's counsel
countered that the question did not present an "unresolved
question of law" and that it rested on findings of fact that "have
not yet been made," and asked the court to deny Phillips' motion.

The plaintiff's motion goes on to assert that, as entities created
by counties, cities or towns, regional jail authorities are not
government agencies. The motion continues that even if the
individual defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity for
simple negligence, they would not enjoy that immunity if their
conduct was intentional or grossly negligent -- a question of fact
that hasn't yet been answered in the litigation.

"Thornhill has alleged, and will prove at trial, that the
individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious
medical needs of Shawn Christopher Berry," it reads.  "In doing
so, Thornhill will necessarily prove gross negligence sufficient
to defeat sovereign immunity."

"The question of whether the individual defendants were grossly
negligent is a fact-laden inquiry inappropriate for decision until
the jury has ruled, or at least until the summary judgment stage,"
it continues.

Ms. Thornhill's counsel further rejects the notion that
Ms. Phillips' question of law is unresolved.  Citing the state's
appellate case law and rulings from the "majority of federal
district courts," the attorneys say that regional jail authorities
fail to meet the necessary criteria to receive immunity.

A judge has not yet weighed in on the latest round of motions.  A
jury trial in the matter is set for Nov. 6 in federal court in
Charlottesville.


VONS COMPANIES: "Carter" Sues Over Lack of Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------
Jahad Carter, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Vons Companies, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC658177, (Cal.
Super., April 18, 2017), seeks damages or penalties, including
interest thereon, attorney's fees and costs of suit pursuant to
the California Labor Code for failure to provide accurate and
itemized wage statements.

The Vons Companies, Inc., doing business as Vons Grocery Company,
owns and operates a chain of grocery stores to serve customer in
Southern Californians and Nevadans.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Kristen Agnew, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554

            - and -

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
      501 Los Angeles Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Tel: (831) 531-4214
      Fax: (831) 634-0333


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Sets April 2018 Trial for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner at Reuters reports a federal judge in California
said on April 20 that a trial in a long-running class action
claiming Wal-Mart Stores Inc violated California law by failing to
provide seating to its cashiers will start in the fall of 2018.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Francisco said he wanted
to place the eight-year-old lawsuit on track for trial after Wal-
Mart lost a bid last year to decertify the class. He ordered Wal-
Mart, represented by LTL Attorneys, and lawyers for the plaintiffs
from the Jones Law Firm and Righetti Glugoski to meet and decide
on specific dates. [GN]


WALTER INVESTMENT: Ditech Unit Must Pay Damages to Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp.'s subsidiary is required to pay
damages to class members pursuant to an approved settlement
agreement, according to the Company's March 14, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Ditech Financial LLC had been subject to several putative class
action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions
alleged that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly
received benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the
form of commissions for work not performed, services provided at a
reduced cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the
actual cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits
asserted various theories of recovery and sought remedies
including compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble
damages, return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief. One
such matter was Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al.
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16, 2014.

A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in the
Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015 and the settlement was
approved by the court on August 30, 2016. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, all of the defendants collectively,
including Ditech Financial, are required to pay damages to class
members who timely file a claim, administrative costs to
effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be
paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial
statements as of December 31, 2016. The settlement agreement also
provides that Ditech Financial and its subsidiary, Green Tree
Insurance Agency, Inc., and their affiliates will be released from
certain claims and may no longer receive commissions on the
placement of certain lender-placed insurance for a period of five
years commencing January 27, 2017. This settlement resolves all
lender-placed insurance class actions for the relevant period of
the class, although the settlement does not apply to potential
individual claims by class members who have opted out of the
proposed settlement.

Walter Investment Management Corp. is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans.  The Company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for government-sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), government agencies, third-party
securitization trusts and other credit owners.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Has Nixed $24-Mil. Reserve for Approved Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in connection with
the approved settlement and dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit,
the Company is no longer the primary obligor to the claimants and,
as a result, has eliminated its $24 million reserve and
corresponding receivable from certain insurers.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar
Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D.
Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was
filed. The amended complaint named as defendants the Company, Mark
O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended
complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between
May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual
defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, the
processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory
and legal requirements by Ditech Financial, the liabilities
associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's
internal controls. The complaint sought class certification and an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and August
11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS. On
July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the
Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the
third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations
and asserted various defenses. On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in
substantial part on March 16, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement to fully
resolve all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted
in the action for a total payment of $24 million, which is
inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all other costs
associated with the proposed settlement. On June 13, 2016, the
court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement and directing that potential members of the class be
notified of the proposed settlement.

On October 17, 2016, the court entered an order finally approving
the proposed settlement and dismissing the action. In accordance
with the settlement agreement, certain insurers of the Company
have paid the full amount of the settlement into an escrow
account. The defendants, including the Company, did not make any
admission of liability or wrongdoing in connection with the
settlement.

In connection with the approved settlement and dismissal, the
Company says it is no longer the primary obligor to the claimants
and, as a result, has eliminated its $24 million reserve and
corresponding receivable from certain insurers.

Walter Investment Management Corp. is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans.  The Company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for government-sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), government agencies, third-party
securitization trusts and other credit owners.


WALTER INVESTMENT: "Kamimura" Suit Remains Pending in D. Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Lee C. Kamimura v.
Green Tree Servicing LLC remains pending in the District of
Nevada, Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech
Financial LLC is subject to a putative nationwide class action
suit alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act violations by obtaining
credit bureau information without a permissible purpose after the
discharge of debt owed to Ditech Financial LLC pursuant to Chapter
13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, seeks actual and
punitive damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and
litigation costs.

Walter Investment Management Corp. is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans.  The Company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for government-sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), government agencies, third-party
securitization trusts and other credit owners.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Suit Remain Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Further proceedings in the lawsuit titled Sanford Buckles v. Green
Tree Servicing LLC and Walter Investment Management Corporation
are stayed pending a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court,
according to Walter Investment Management Corp.'s March 14, 2017,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company is involved in litigation, including putative class
actions, and other legal proceedings concerning, among other
things, lender-placed insurance, private mortgage insurance,
bankruptcy practices, employment practices, the Consumer Financial
Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
European Free Trade Association, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
and other federal and state laws and statutes.

In Sanford Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC and Walter
Investment Management Corporation, filed on August 18, 2015 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech Financial
LLC (the Parent Company has since been dismissed) is subject to a
putative class action suit alleging that Ditech Financial, within
the three years prior to the filing of the complaint, improperly
recorded phone calls received from, and/or made to, persons in
Nevada at the time of the call, and did so without their prior
consent in violation of Nevada state law. The plaintiff in this
suit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks
punitive damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.

Ditech Financial moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court
determined that the relevant issue is a question of Nevada law to
be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court. Accordingly, further
proceedings in the U.S. District Court are stayed pending a
decision by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Walter Investment Management Corp. is an independent servicer and
originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage
loans.  The Company services a wide array of loans across the
credit spectrum for its own portfolio and for government-sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), government agencies, third-party
securitization trusts and other credit owners.


WELLS FARGO: "Harris" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Harris, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01146-DMF (D. Ariz., Apr. 18, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40
hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant employs the telephone-based workers who are the
putative class members in this lawsuit. The Plaintiff worked as a
telephone-dedicated employee in the position of outbound/inbound
sales specialist at Wells Fargo's Chandler, Arizona call center.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees had to be ready to
handle a call at the start of their scheduled shift times. In
order to be ready to handle a call, Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees had to first boot up their computers and open
various software programs necessary for handling a call. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees had to be available to
handle call until the end of their scheduled shift time. The
Defendant knowingly required and/or permitted Plaintiff and other
similarly situated telephone-dedicated employees to perform unpaid
work before and after their scheduled shift times. This unpaid
work includes but is not limited to booting up computers,
initializing several software programs, reading company issued
emails and instructions at the beginning of their shifts, and
completing customer service calls, securing their workstations,
locking their desk drawers, and securing any customer or
proprietary information at the end of their shifts.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726 3400
          E-mail: Tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
          MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
          15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 889 8951
          E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Gibbons" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg
and Reis Co., LPA. The case is titled as MEGHAN GIBBONS, ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01851-JHS (E.D. Pa., Apr. 24, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge is Joel H. Slomsky.

Weltman & Weinberg provides collection services and legal
representation to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph L. Gentilcore, Esq.
          DIEHL LAW LLC
          P.O. Box 43098
          Philadelphia, PA 19129
          Telephone: (267) 614 6515
          Facsimile: (908) 450 1594
          E-mail: jogentilcore@gmail.com


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Faces "Witt" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., LPA. The case is captioned as Christopher Witt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02429 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 24, 2017).

Weltman & Weinberg provides collection services and legal
representation to creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEST VIRGINIA: Water Crisis Settlement Close to Finalization
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr. at Charleston Gazette-Mail reports lawyers for
Kanawha Valley residents, West Virginia American Water and Eastman
Chemical are said to be close to finalizing and making public for
the first time the details of a USD151 million settlement of the
class-action case over the January 2014 regional water crisis, a
federal judge said April 21.

U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. said in a one-page
order that the parties had informed him they "have reached virtual
agreement" on the details of the proposed settlement.

Copenhaver ordered the parties to file the proposed settlement
documents -- which would detail, for example, exactly how the
money would be distributed to hundreds of thousands of area
residents and businesses -- on or before April 20.

The judge again rescheduled a trial in the case, currently set to
start April 25, until June 6. The move is mostly a formality,
because no trial is expected in the case, unless the settlement
were to fall apart. There's been no indication that is likely to
happen.

Copenhaver entered his order following another in a long series of
closed-door meetings that the judge has held with lawyers in the
case in the six months since a tentative settlement was reached
and broad terms of the related agreements with West Virginia
American and Eastman were made public.

Under the deals, West Virginia American would pay up to USD126
million and Eastman up to USD25 million to residents, businesses,
and workers who were unable to use their tap water during the "do
not use" order period that followed the contamination of the
region's Elk River water supply by a spill of Crude MCHM and other
chemicals from the Freedom Industries facility just 1.5 miles
upstream from the water company intake.

Lawyers for residents and businesses allege that West Virginia
American did not adequately prepare for or respond to the spill
and that MCHM-maker Eastman did not properly warn Freedom of the
dangers of its chemical or take any action when Eastman officials
learned that the Freedom facility was in disrepair.

Under federal court rules, once the settlement documents are
filed, the judge will determine whether to preliminary approve the
deal, a move that would then trigger public notice of the terms
and the ability for residents to object or opt-out of the
settlement. Details of how victims of the spill can file claims to
receive payments under the settlement will be made public as part
of that process.  [GN]


WESTCHESTER VILLAGE: "Scheck" Suit Asserts Unfair Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
Judith Scheck, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Village of Westchester, an Illinois
Municipal Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-05606 (Ill.
Cir., April 18, 2017), seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the
Illinois Municipal Code.

Scheck is a resident of Westchester and owns multiple-family
buildings in the village. Defendant allegedly compelled all
homeowners to purchase the fire alarm wireless transmitter from
their preferred supplier, thus tantamount to unfair monopoly and
unfair competition. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Karamanis, Esq.
      Joshua S. Barney, Esq.
      BARNEY & KARAMANIS, LLP
      Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 3050
      180 N. Stetson
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Email: james@bkchicagolaw.com


YUM!: Auxilium Partners Appeal Ruling in Pizza Price Cut Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Milne, writing for The West Australian, reports that a
West Perth liquidator is taking on one of the world's biggest
fast-food companies on behalf of almost 200 Pizza Hut franchisees
who lost out when they were ordered to slash the prices on their
menus.

Auxilium Partners boss Bob Jacobs will next month appeal against a
ruling that cleared American giant Yum!, owner of the Pizza Hut
brand, of any wrongdoing when in 2014 it forced its Australian
franchisees to halve the prices of some pizzas to $4.95.

Competitor Domino's beat Pizza Hut to the punch, introducing the
$4.95 range first.  Fearing the so-called "value strategy" would
not work without the first-mover advantage, Pizza Hut franchisees
tried but failed to get an injunction to stop the price cuts.
Eighteen months later, Mr Jacobs was liquidating two companies
that had been operating six Pizza Hut stores but faltered under a
franchise fee system in which they paid Yum! according to sales,
not profit.

"It wasn't really a value strategy for the franchisees; it might
have been a value strategy for the franchisor," Mr Jacobs said.

A gourmet pizza parlour with a twist has just opened its doors in
Northbridge.

A class action against Yum! on behalf of 190 of the 200
franchisees ended in a win for Yum! in February last year.   An
appeal had to be lodged within six months.  With the deadline
nearing, lawyers from the original action sent a last request for
support to all the franchisees.

When Mr Jacobs received the letter, he took a closer look at the
initial decision and got his own legal advice. "It just didn't
seem right," he said.

With no money available from the two companies Auxilium was
liquidating, the firm funded the next legal steps.

Mr Jacobs could not convince any litigation funder to take on the
case so approached the Australian Taxation Office.

"We put up a proposal that the impact of this case is actually on
the employees and the tax office," he said.  "So for them, from my
perspective, it was a no-brainer to fund it."

The tax office provided an indemnity to cover Yum!'s costs should
the appeal fail.  This allowed the appeal to proceed.

Yum! sold the master franchise for Pizza Hut in Australia to
Sydney equity fund Allegro in September.

Almost three years after having to implement the cut-price menu,
many franchisees are in administration or liquidation.

The appeal is slated to be heard by the Federal Court on May 15.


* Capital Markets Committee Seek Class Action Regulation Reform
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Balboa, writing for Benzinga, reports that the status of
"public company" is expensive.  Between forfeiture of sovereignty,
vulnerability to class actions and millions of dollars in fees to
ensure regulatory compliance, the whole package is increasingly
unbecoming.

And the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation worries the
lacking appeal may have significant economic impact.

Shrinking Public Markets

Last year recorded the lowest IPO equity capital in a decade.  The
$24 billion raised by 111 IPOs in 2016 barely registered beside
the nearly $100 billion raised by 290 IPOs in 2014.

Not only that, but the continued trend of delisting lengthened a
steady, 20-year decline in market population.  Today's cohort is
slimmer than that of the early 1980s, which leaves investors with
limited opportunity to diversify portfolios.

The Rise Of The Private Market

Meanwhile, as the public markets contract, the private markets are
expanding, with the number of billion-dollar startups nearly
tripling between 2013 and 2016.  Concurrently, investors are
shifting funds to the startup scene.  Private Reg D offerings
raised more than 4.5 times the amount accrued among IPOs in 2016
to sustain a nearly decade-long trend of private equity capital
outpacing public capital.

Slim pickings in the public market may have something to do with
it.

"There are fewer public companies out there, and they're
decreasing, so where are investors going to go?" Hal Scott, CCMR
director and Harvard University law professor, told Benzinga.
"They're going to go to the part of the market that's expanding
and where there are increased opportunities for investment, which
is the private market."

He added that the cost burden of public companies also limits
returns, which may deter investors.

Effects Of Privatization

Ultimately, the effect of a weak IPO market is stunted economic
growth.

"If you look at the source of economic growth in this country,
it's largely because startups and the success of these startups,"
Scott said, looking at the likes of Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG)
(NASDAQ: GOOGL) and Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN).

Small businesses, bolstered by venture capital, can grow into
corporations with significant economic influence, and he said this
process of maturation is the true source of long-term economic
growth in the United States.  But startups without venture capital
don't make it very far, and the promise of an eventual IPO is what
attracts those seeds.

"A very important element in the ability of these startups to
attract venture capital is that the people investing in these
companies see a payoff in the future from their investments, and
that payoff has traditionally been an exit into the public market
where they get a high multiple on what they originally invested,"
Mr. Scott said. " So, when you take that possibility away, the
natural impact of that is to reduce the incentives to invest and
venture, and that all has a negative drag on economic growth."

Consequences also manifest in the American household, where retail
investors suffer a financial disadvantage.

"One problem with an increasingly private market is that U.S.
retail investors do not have an effective way to directly invest
in these young and exciting companies, including Uber and Airbnb,"
John Gulliver, CCMR executive director of research, said in a
press release.

Legal And Regulatory Changes

The CCMR said amending class action regulation to limit the legal
risks of public companies may reverse the trends and heighten the
appeal of going public.  Mr. Scott said the rate of securities
class actions is rising toward a rate similar but "not quite as
bad" as the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley years, and private companies are
wary of suffering both financial and reputational damage from
these lawsuits.

The legal concerns not only disincentivize domestic companies from
listing on U.S. exchanges but foreign companies, as well. The
factor has prompted the rapid expansion of more loosely regulated
international markets, such as that of China.

"I can tell you one big difference -- there's no securities class
actions any place else in the world," Mr. Scott said.  "That's a
huge difference.  I think also if you looked at the rest of the
world you would find much less granularity about disclosure
requirements.  You would probably find in general that the
pressure on short-term performance is probably somewhat less on
other public markets around the world.  But I think that the
securities class action is a total difference and it probably
plays a major role in those public markets being more dynamic than
ours."

Regulatory changes could then prove a major game-changer for U.S.
markets and the greater economy.  The committee specifically
recommended that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allow
shareholders to decide on a company-by-company basis whether to
permit securities class actions.


* Implementation of DOL's Fiduciary Rule Faces Delay
----------------------------------------------------
Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Meghan Milloy writing for The Hill, report
that President Trump, in his Feb. 3 presidential memorandum
ordered the Department of Labor (DOL) to "examine the Fiduciary
Duty Rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability
of Americans to gain access to retirement information and
financial advice, and . . . [i]f you make an affirmative
determination as to any [adverse effects] . . . then you shall
publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or
revising the Rule."

Recall that the fiduciary rule is the regulation from DOL that
will hold financial advisors to a heightened standard of
compliance or force them to enter into a Best Interest Contract
(BIC) with their clients. The rule has been hotly debated for the
better part of 7 years, largely due to the fact that it will
result in retirement savers paying higher fees, having fewer
options for their retirement savings, or losing out on access to a
managed retirement account altogether.

Accordingly, earlier this month DOL finalized a rule that would
delay the implementation of the long-awaited fiduciary rule by 60
days while it undertakes a further evaluation of the potential
effects of the rule. At first, opponents of the rule were pleased
that DOL would be delaying the rule for further study. But then,
the bureaucratic empire struck back.

Holdover Obama administration employees at DOL snuck language into
the 60-day delay rule that effectively says, "We don't care what
the president ordered.  You can have your 60-day delay, but the
rule will go into effect immediately on day 61 no matter what."
Specifically, the rule states that "stakeholders can plan on and
prepare for compliance with the fiduciary rule . . . beginning
June 9, 2017," even though DOL acknowledges in the very same rule
that it will take longer than 60 days to the examination in
accordance with the presidential memorandum.

It's bureaucratic tomfoolery at its finest, and it should not be
tolerated. Implementing the fiduciary rule on June 9 is in direct
conflict with presidential directives.

The memorandum orders the rule to be rescinded or revised if DOL
finds any of the following to be true: "(i) Whether the
anticipated applicability of the Fiduciary Duty Rule has harmed or
is likely to harm investors due to a reduction of Americans'
access to certain retirement savings or offerings, retirement
product structures, retirement savings information, or related
financial advice; (ii) Whether the anticipated applicability of
the Fiduciary Duty Rule has resulted in disruptions within the
retirement services industry that may adversely affect investors
or retirees; and (iii) Whether the Fiduciary Duty Rule is likely
to cause an increase in litigation, and an increase in the prices
that investors and retirees must pay to gain access to retirement
services."

Research from the American Action Forum (AAF) has found all three
to be true.  For instance, AAF found that if retirement account
minimum balances are increased just to $5,000 as a result of the
rule, over 10 million Americans will lose access to managed
retirement accounts.  Further, if the rule is implemented as is,
it will be the most expensive non-environmental regulatory action
since 2005 and will increase consumer costs by over $46 billion
annually. And as to the president's third concern, firms covered
by the fiduciary rule will see annual litigation costs up to $150
million as a result of class-action lawsuits stemming from the
rule's best interest contract exemption.

With not just one adverse effect from the presidential memorandum
found to be true, but all three, DOL must further delay the
implementation of the fiduciary rule until it is able to
appropriately study its costs and effects.  Then it must either
revise the rule so it works for retirement savers or rescind it
altogether -- or run afoul of violating the president's mandate.
DOL bureaucrats may think they have duped everyone by forcing
implementation in this 60-day delay, but they did not.  And if
this best interest standard is truly to be in the best interest of
retirement savers, it must be delayed and reworked.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum.  He
served as director of the Congressional Budget Office during the
George W. Bush administration.

Meghan Milloy is director of financial services policy at the
American Action Forum.  She was a presidential management fellow
at the Small Business Administration and the House Small Business
Committee.


* Judge Moves Eagan Avenatti's Chapter 11 Case to California
------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado at Law360 reports a that Florida bankruptcy judge
on April 21 granted a U.S. trustee's request to move the
involuntary Chapter 11 case of class action law firm Eagan
Avenatti LLP to California, where the firm, its owners and
creditors are based.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Karen S. Jennemann transferred the case to
the Central District of California's Santa Ana division after
acting U.S. Trustee Guy Gebhardt said the case, filed in March in
Orlando by a mysterious Florida creditor, did not belong in the
Middle District of Florida.

"The court, having considered the motion to transfer, the debtor's
consent to the transfer of this case, and the record in this case,
finds that it is appropriate to transfer this case to the Central
District of California for the reasons stated on the record at the
status conference," Judge Jennemann said.

The firm's owner, Michael Avenatti, is in Newport Beach, as are
the firm's assets and the majority of its creditors, according to
the trustee's motion filed April 13. The only creditor with a
Florida address is the one who filed the involuntary petition, a
purported private investigator named Gerald Tobin who gave an
Orlando address.

The trustee argued that keeping the case in Florida was
impractical and "would not serve the interests of justice."

Eagan Avenatti attorney Elizabeth Green of BakerHostetler declined
to comment beyond saying that the firm did not object to the
transfer.

The firm was plunged into bankruptcy March 1 by Tobin, who claims
he is owed USD28,700 for services rendered. Since filing the
petition, he has not appeared in court, though he hired an
attorney and asked to postpone a Rule 2004 examination, which is
akin to a deposition, that had originally been set for April 7.

No new date for the Rule 2004 examination has been set, according
to Berger Singerman LLP's Isaac Marcushamer, who represents Jason
Frank, a former attorney at Eagan Avenatti who claims he is owed
USD14 million in profit share and origination bonuses under a
contract he signed with the firm. Marcushamer said Tobin's counsel
reached out to reschedule the examination, but since then has not
responded to Marcushamer's request for a new date.

"That examination will probably have to wait for the transfer to
be complete," Marcushamer said. "Before this case is done, Mr.
Tobin's being questioned under oath somewhere, somehow."

An Orlando UPS Store manager testified earlier this month that the
petitioning creditor had opened a mailbox at his branch on Feb.
28, one day before filing the involuntary bankruptcy using the
address for that mailbox.

The bankruptcy has postponed the arbitration of a multimillion-
dollar dispute between Eagan Avenatti and Frank over the money he
claims he's owed. Avenatti, meanwhile, accuses Frank of conspiring
with others while at Eagan Avenatti to start their own firm, Frank
Sims Stolper LLP, and poach clients.

The parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, as required under
their contract, but Frank said in bankruptcy filings that the firm
needlessly delayed the process. On Feb. 10, an arbitration panel
agreed with Frank's assessment and ordered a number of sanctions
against Eagan Avenatti for discovery violations that included
failing to produce tax returns, bank statements and other
accounting forms.

The arbitration was set to start March 13, but has now been
postponed indefinitely by the involuntary Chapter 11 proceeding,
to which Eagan Avenatti consented on March 10. Frank has now filed
as a creditor in the bankruptcy.

Eagan Avenatti is represented by Elizabeth A. Green --
egreen@bakerlaw.com -- and Tiffany D. Payne --
tpaynegeyer@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler.

Frank is represented by Isaac Marcushamer --
imarcushamer@bergersingerman.com -- and Ilyse Homer --
ihomer@bergersingerman.com -- of Berger Singerman LLP.

Counsel information for Tobin was unavailable.

The case is In re: Eagan Avenatti LLP, case number 6:17-bk-01329,
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida.
[GN]


* Legislators Excited by Construction Defect Law Progress
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Coltrain at the Coloradoan reports a bill that would slow
down potential lawsuits against condominium developers cleared an
important hurdle in the state House of Representatives, and Fort
Collins' legislators couldn't be happier.

"It's about time," Rep. Joann Ginal, D-Fort Collins, said of the
bill after a town hall. The bill represents a bipartisan effort
for construction defect law reform.

Various efforts at reforming the law have become a perennial topic
in the Capitol, particularly as housing costs and rents continue
to soar in Fort Collins and along the Front Range. Current law
allows owners of individual units in multi-unit complexes to
initiate class action lawsuits without total buy-in from all
owners.

Critics saw current law makes it too risky for developers to build
condominiums because of high insurance costs. Many say condos are
a missing piece of affordable housing and a lower-cost entry point
to home ownership.

Opponents to carte blanche reform of existing law worry it would
remove important protections for buyers against shoddy
workmanship. The three legislators representing almost all of Fort
Collins city limits were optimistic that this bill, HB17-1279,
strikes the right balance.

"We have to get to a place where we all agree on that," Ginal
said. "It's too much of a holdup."

If the bill becomes law, developers will have a chance to present
their cases to homeowners associations before lawsuits are filed,
and the majority of unit owners will have to vote to proceed with
a suit.

The bill passed out of a House committee with unanimous,
bipartisan support from the committee members. Neither Rep. Jeni
Arndt, D-Fort Collins, nor Ginal serve on that committee.

The bill still needs to pass the House as a whole and move through
the Senate before it can land on the governor's desk.

Arndt, Ginal and Sen. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, refrained from
speculating too much on any immediate impact the bill could have
on condo construction in Fort Collins. If it becomes law, it
would need time to breathe and for builders to react. But they
said they're hopeful it would have some kind of effect.

Kefalas said affordable housing and condo construction are "more
complex than just litigation" and are also influenced by market
forces. That said, he supports this bill in concept, though he
hasn't read it in-depth yet.

"If we could address this piece of the puzzle, that's important
progress," he said. "But it's just one piece of the puzzle."
Arndt echoed the need to see how this affects the market, but she
added that she's prepared to push the issue again if this bill
stalls or doesn't seem to do the trick.

"Let's give this a chance to work," she said. "And, if it doesn't,
I'm prepared to go back next year." [GN]


* Mintz Levin Attorney Discusses Class Arbitration Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Samberg, Esq. -- GASamberg@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin
Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, in an article for Law360,
reports that we recently began a series of articles in which we
ask: Is "class arbitration" viable given the essential nature of
arbitration, or is it an oxymoron? (The premise here is that
"class arbitration" signifies the utilization of a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 class action protocol in an arbitration
proceeding.) In this article, we examine possible bases for the
viability of class arbitration.  Spoiler alert: they do not hold
up to scrutiny.

In brief, here is why.  The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly
stated that it is an overarching principle that commercial
arbitration is a creature of contract, and so the roots of a
viable class arbitration presumably must be found in an
arbitration agreement.  The threshold problem in trying to import
a class action protocol into a private arbitration proceeding is
that the consent of the parties to an arbitration agreement is
necessary but not sufficient.  An arbitration agreement has the
force of contract, not of law, and so it binds only its consenting
parties.  Nonparty putative "class members" are not bound by an
arbitration agreement unless they each agree with the contracting
parties to be mutually bound. And absent such additional ad hoc
agreements, the arbitrator has no jurisdiction over the putative
class members.  Consequently, it seems unlikely that a true "class
arbitration" award would survive a vacatur motion under Section
10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

On a related note, if the foregoing is correct, then most of the
litigation and judicial resources devoted to the question of the
enforceability of a "class arbitration waiver" have been misspent.
The premise of the controversy is that an arbitrating party has a
unilateral right to employ a class arbitration mechanism.  But
there is no unilateral right in arbitration to any particular
procedure; all must be agreed.  The pertinent question regarding
"class arbitration" concerns agreement; there is no unilateral
right in that regard to be waived.

(Finally, we point out that a viable alternative mechanism for
adding parties to an arbitral proceeding is conventional joinder
according to the rules of the arbitration administering
organizations.  And that could be facilitated by the inclusion in
an arbitration agreement of certain third-party beneficiary rights
in favor of other identifiable persons.)

In General

First, it seems uncontroversial that in the absence of bilateral
consent in an arbitration agreement, no class arbitration
procedure should be permitted or imposed.  The potential postures
of the parties to an arbitration agreement with respect to the
permissibility of "class arbitration" are binary: agreement or
not.  Currently, if there is no agreement to permit class
arbitration -- whether that "no agreement" posture is expressed as
a prohibition or mere silence concerning it -- neither party
should be permitted to prosecute a class arbitration.

Thus, a prerequisite to the employment of a class arbitration
mechanism is that the parties to an arbitration agreement (a) must
have agreed to permit it, or (b) must be deemed to have agreed to
that. Agreement might be "deemed" by reason of (i) incorporation
by reference in the arbitration agreement of rules -- typically
the arbitration rules of an administering organization (e.g., the
American Arbitration Association ["AAA"]) -- that provide for a
class action mechanism, without expressly excluding such "class
arbitration" rules; or possibly (ii) the contracting parties'
creation of pertinent third-party beneficiary rights. This is in
keeping with the principle that the procedural rules of an
arbitration are fashioned by agreement of the parties.

Other theoretical bases upon which a stranger to an arbitration
agreement might compel a contracting party to arbitrate -- e.g.,
estoppel by a nonparty -- ultimately would not afford the means to
establish a true class action.  Rather, if successful, they would
enable a particular stranger to engage in an arbitration
proceeding, but would not enable a party to create a class of
nonconsenting nonparticipant litigants in such a proceeding.  So
too, considering a converse dynamic in which a party to an
arbitration agreement seeks to compel a nonsignatory to arbitrate,
the potential legal bases -- various common law contract and
agency theories -- do not afford the means to create a class of
nonparticipant litigant parties either. (And the typical use of
such theories in a motion under FAA Section4 to compel an adverse
person to arbitrate is not consistent with the typical dynamic of
class litigation, where a party seeks to become a representative
by fiat of putative friendly co-parties.)

In any case, there is a fundamental problem too where there is a
bilateral agreement to permit "class arbitration" in a particular
proceeding. Such a bilateral agreement binds only the parties to
it, and no current law clearly extends its effect further. If that
is so, then a true "class action" protocol would seem not to be
viable.  A Rule 23 protocol makes a defined group of nonconsenting
persons into de jure members of a litigating class, who will be
bound by the result of a litigation unless they take steps to opt
out of that class.  That is inconsistent with the nature of
arbitration, which is contract-based and inherently consensual.
Furthermore, an arbitral tribunal would not have jurisdiction over
additional persons who are not parties (or deemed parties) to the
controlling bilateral arbitration agreement.  Therefore, a true
class arbitration award should be vacated under FAA
Section10(a)(4) because the arbitral panel will have exceeded its
powers by purporting to bind persons beyond its jurisdiction.

On the other hand, a bilateral agreement, relying on an opt-in
protocol, to permit joinder of additional identifiable persons --
e.g., those with virtually identical claims against the same
respondent -- might be effective.  That is, it might be agreed by
the parties to an arbitration agreement that certain identifiable
others may, in defined circumstances, opt into that agreement. The
result would be consensual joinders, not a class action protocol.
And a resultant award would be sustainable.

Is this approach (and the analysis above) plausible? At least two
justices of the Supreme Court have indicated that purported "class
members" who have not opted into a "class arbitration" proceeding
would not be bound by a purported class arbitration award. See,
Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2072 (2013)
(Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, concurring).

Agreement (and its Limits)

1. The Arbitration Agreement Requirement

"Class arbitration" is not permitted under the FAA unless it is
authorized by the parties in their arbitration agreement (or by
some controlling law). Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.,
559 U.S. 662, 684, 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010).

The jurisdiction of an arbitrator to adjudicate and issue an award
derives only from an arbitration agreement, and applies only to
the parties to it.  Therefore, an arbitrator presumably cannot
compel nonparties to arbitrate.  So too, a court is not authorized
by the FAA to compel arbitration by persons who are not bound by
an arbitration agreement. EEOC v. Waffle House Inc., 534 U.S. 279,
289 (2002); see 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4; cf., United Steel Workers of
America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 581
(1960).

2. Interpretation of an Arbitration Agreement

Where class arbitration is not clearly prohibited in an
arbitration clause, whether it is permitted is a matter of
contract interpretation typically applying state law. E.g., 2
Domke, Commercial Arbitration Section32:32 (June 2016); Stolt-
Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 681 ("interpretation of an arbitration
agreement is generally a matter of state law"); 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2
(FAA Section2).

There must be a textual basis for concluding that the parties
agreed to class arbitration in particular. Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S.
at 684-85. Mere silence in that regard in an arbitration clause
may not be construed to constitute or indicate an agreement to
class arbitration. Stolt-Nielsen, 130 S.Ct. at 1776; 1 Oehmke,
Commercial Arbitration Sec. 16:1.

3. Inherent Limits of a Bilateral Agreement

Contracting counterparties may agree among themselves to permit
the utilization of a particular procedural mechanism -- e.g.,
class arbitration -- in their private dispute resolution
proceeding.  Their bilateral agreement in that regard would bind
no other persons, however.  Therefore, while such an agreement
might effectively neutralize an objection by either contracting
party to the employment of a class arbitration mechanism, it would
not bind any other person, or be a basis for a party or arbitrator
to compel any other person, to join in the arbitral proceeding as
a class member. (You and I can agree that we are the new Kings of
Spain, and that our subjects will contribute funds to raise an
armada to conquer England.  Forty-seven million Spaniards might
question our authority, however, even if we gave them the option
of filing papers to opt out of our "deal.")

And a bilateral arbitration agreement, whatever its terms, does
not confer upon an arbitrator jurisdiction over a person who has
not agreed with the parties to be mutually bound by it.
Arbitration "is a matter of consent, not coercion." Stolt-Nielsen,
103 S.Ct. at 1773, citing Volt Information Sciences Inc. v. Board
of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468,
479, 109 S.Ct. 1248 (1989).

4. Express Agreement to Class Arbitration -- the Optimal Case

Illustrating the point that bilateral agreements do not bind third
parties, we can imagine an example involving multiple identical
consumer contracts -- e.g., credit card agreements -- in which the
card issuer and each cardholder agree to permit class arbitration;
indeed, they agree to import the Rule 23 class action protocol,
with its opt-out option, into an arbitration.  In that case, could
a representative cardholder create a class of all cardholders and
conduct an effective class arbitration without the affirmative
consent of any other cardholder to be bound by the arbitration
agreement?

The representative cardholder can rely on the card issuer's
agreement to block an objection by the issuer to permitting a
class arbitration procedure.  But each party only agreed that a
class arbitration mechanism would be permitted in the arbitration
of a claim by that cardholder against the issuer (or vice versa).
No cardholder will have pre-agreed with the issuer to become a
class member in an arbitration commenced by another cardholder, or
to be bound by an agreement, however similar, made by another
cardholder with the issuer.  And an arbitrator has no inherent
power, any more than a court, to compel (or to permit) a
noncontracting party to join an arbitration.

Consequently, even in the case of a broadly common bilateral
agreement expressly to permit a class arbitration mechanism, a
further affirmative agreement by each of the other cardholders who
intend to assert a claim and to be bound by an award in a
particular arbitral proceeding would seem to be required. And that
would not be "class arbitration."

5. Third-Party Beneficiaries

However, a bilateral agreement arguably could be the basis to
invite additional parties -- presumably, similarly situated
parties -- to join in a particular arbitration proceeding. That
is, an arbitration agreement might make a defined group of persons
third-party beneficiaries.  If an arbitration agreement permitted
identifiable persons to opt in by agreeing to become additional
parties to an arbitration agreement, and if such persons did so,
their claims arguably could be joined in a single proceeding.  The
result would be the joinder of additional persons, with consents
by all parties, and subject to conventional administrative rules
in that regard (see, e.g., ICC Arb. Rules Art. 7-10; LCIA Arb.
Rules Arts. 22.1(vii)). And in that scenario, a resulting award
would be confirmable.

Incorporation of Pertinent Rules by Reference

There are a variety of procedural rules that parties to an
arbitration agreement may incorporate by reference and that relate
to the addition to an arbitral proceeding of noncontracting
persons.

1. AAA Rules

The AAA's Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations ("SRCA")
(eff. Oct. 8, 2003) in effect imports the elements of Rule 23 into
the AAA's arbitration rubric.  The AAA's policy is that it will
administer a class arbitration applying those rules if the
arbitration agreement (i) indicates that the arbitration will be
conducted in accordance with the rules of the AAA without
excluding the SRCA; and (ii) is silent concerning consolidation,
joinder of claims, and "class claims."

The arbitrator must consider two screening criteria before
applying the SRCA, however.  He/she must first determine "whether
the applicable arbitration clause permits the arbitration to
proceed on behalf of or against a class." (SRCA-3.) However, in
construing the applicable arbitration agreement, "the arbitrator
shall not consider the existence of [the SRCA] . . . to be a
factor either in favor of or against permitting the arbitration to
proceed on a class basis." (Id.) If the arbitrator is satisfied
that a class arbitration may proceed under the arbitration clause
in question, he/she "shall determine whether the arbitration
should proceed as a class arbitration." (SRCA-4(a).) One of the
requirements in that regard is that "each class member has entered
into an agreement containing an arbitration clause which is
substantially similar to that signed by the class
representative(s) and each of the other class members." (SRCA-
4(a)(6).)

Eventually, if the arbitrator makes a Class Determination Award
(and it is not vacated), a Notice of Class Determination to each
of the class members would be required, and that notice would
describe an opt-out right of the class members. (See, SRCA-
6(b)(5).)

Finally, parties to a class arbitration under the SRCA are "deemed
to have consented that judgment upon each of the awards rendered
in the arbitration may be entered in any federal or state court
having jurisdiction thereof." (SRCA-12.) (The definition of
"parties" for that purpose is not specified.)

The question remains, however, whether the jurisdiction of an
arbitrator, which is inherently limited to the parties to the
arbitration agreement that empowers him (for purposes of issuing
an award) is, as a matter of law, expanded to include other
persons by reason of the contracting parties' agreement to the
applicability of the SRCA in an AAA arbitration. We suggest not.

The AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules (eff. July 1, 2016) contain
no provisions specifically regarding joinder (or consolidation of
proceedings), but do provide that the arbitrator shall have the
power to rule on the existence, scope and validity of any
arbitration agreement (R-7(a)), and on objections to the
jurisdiction of the arbitrator (R-7(c)). On the other hand, the
current (June 1, 2014) arbitration rules of the International
Centre for Dispute Resolution ("ICDR") -- the international arm of
the AAA -- include provisions concerning joinder (and
consolidation of proceedings). (See Arts. 7, 19(1), 8.)

2. ICC Rules

The current ICC Rules of Arbitration (effective March 1, 2017)
include joinder (and case consolidation) provisions (see, ICC
Arts. 7-10, 6), but do not appear to provide a basis for class
arbitration.

3. LCIA Rules

The LCIA Arbitration Rules (effective Oct. 1, 2014) too do not
consider class arbitration, but do provide for consensual joinder
of additional persons (and consolidation of arbitral proceedings)
(see Arts. 22.1(viii)-(x)).

Estoppel

Estoppel is a legal theory by which a nonsignatory may compel a
signatory of an arbitration agreement to arbitrate. E.g., Thomson-
CSF SA v. American Arb. Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773, 776, 778 (2d Cir.
1995). A signatory may be estopped from avoiding arbitration with
a nonsignatory when the issues that the nonsignatory is seeking to
resolve in arbitration are "intertwined" with the particular
commercial agreement (containing an arbitration clause) that the
party to be estopped signed. Estoppel thus may enable certain
strangers to a bilateral arbitration agreement individually to
compel arbitration by a party to such an agreement. Any such
stranger would have to be an active participant in the
proceedings, at least in its application to compel arbitration,
rather than a passive "class member." There would seem to be no
road to class arbitration using this theory.

Furthermore, a different variation of an estoppel theory may
enable a signatory of an arbitration agreement to compel a
nonsignatory to arbitrate (i) if the nonsignatory knowingly
accepted benefits "flowing directly from [an] agreement" that
contains an arbitration clause, MAG Portfolio Consult, GmbH v.
Merlin Biomed Group LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 2001), (ii) if
the nonsignatory reaped a direct benefit made possible by the
agreement containing an arbitration clause, Hartford Fire
Insurance Co. v. Evergreen Org Inc., 410 Supp.2d 180, 182, 186-87
(SDNY 2006); (iii) if the non-signatory exploits an agreement to
acquire or use an asset created by such an agreement, e.g.,
Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d
1060, 1063-64 (2d Cir. 1993); or (iv) if a benefit to the non-
signatory is (a) provided or contemplated in the agreement
containing an arbitration clause or (b) otherwise clearly
contemplated by the signatories of the agreement, Deloitte
Noraudit, 9 F.3d at 1063-64. Applying this version of the theory
would not seem to be a basis for creating a class arbitration
either.

A "Class Arbitration Waiver" Is Pointless

Finally, we note that if the foregoing analysis is correct, then
the notion of a "class arbitration waiver" is unnecessary. (Much
paper and many electrons may have been wasted on this superfluous
subject.) An arbitrating party has no inherent unilateral right to
"class arbitration." Neither that nor any other procedure may be
invoked unilaterally in an arbitration; all must be adopted by
agreement. If there is no actual or deemed agreement to permit
"class arbitration," then there should be no possibility that that
mechanism could be employed. "Class arbitration" is either
permitted by agreement of the parties or not. A "waiver" of a non-
existent unilateral right to employ it would be superfluous.

(In the case of the incorporation by reference in an arbitration
agreement of a set of rules that include provisions for class
arbitration (e.g., the AAA's SRCA), a simple exclusion of those
provisions in the terms of the arbitration agreement is what is
called for, not a "waiver.")

Gilbert A. Samberg is a member of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky
and Popeo PC based in the firm's New York office. He is a
commercial litigator and arbitration practitioner who focuses on
international financial, commercial and technology-related
disputes.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or
Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective
affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and
is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. GE Transferred to W. Va. Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Before the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey is Defendant General Electric Company's request for
severance and transfer to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia of the case captioned JOSEPH R.
McCLUNG, JR., Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:16-CV-2301-ES-SCM (D.N.J.).  General Electric
originally moved to dismiss this action for lack of personal
jurisdiction or transfer, in the alternative.

Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and oral arguments,
Magistrate Judge Steve C. Mannion concludes it is in the interest
of justice to sever all claims against General Electric and
transfer them to the Southern District of West Virginia.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/tfONhU from Leagle.com.

JOSEPH R. MCCLUNG, JR., Plaintiff, represented by DENNIS M. GEIER,
COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH.

Ms. JOYCE LYNN BOBRYCKI MCCLUNG, Plaintiff, represented by DENNIS
M. GEIER, COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH.

3M COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E. BRUNERMER,
LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT GAFFREY,
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DAVID SCHUYLER
BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, individually and as successor to the other
E.F. GOODRICH COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ETHAN D.
STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ADAM A.
DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

IMO Industries, as successor to Adel Fasteners, Defendant,
represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

3M COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CATHERINE E. BRUNERMER,
LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER, P.C..

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by MARC SCOTT GAFFREY,
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID
SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
ETHAN D. STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID
SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
DAVID J. NOVACK, BUDD LARNER, PC & TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER,
P.C..

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
ETHAN D. STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by
TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER, P.C.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by
TERENCE W. CAMP, BUDD, LARNER, P.C.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Claimant, represented by
ETHAN D. STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID
SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
ETHAN D. STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.

IMO Industries, as successor to Adel Fasteners, Cross Claimant,
represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

3M COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CATHERINE E.
BRUNERMER, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BOEING COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by MARC SCOTT
GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, ESQS..

CBS CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID
SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII,
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
ETHAN D. STEIN, GIBBONS, PC.

NORTHTRUP-GRUMAN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by ADAM
A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Directed to Produce Docs to Reinsurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In MT. McKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as GIBRALTAR
CASUALTY COMPANY and EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known
as PRUDENTIAL REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 602454/2002, Mtn.
Seq. Nos. 060, 067 (N.Y. Sup.), Century Indemnity Company,
Westchester Fire Insurance Company and their predecessors and
affiliated companies seek production from Corning Incorporated of
documents regarding its negotiations with asbestos claimants
withheld on the basis of the common-interest privilege and work-
product doctrine; and Continental Casualty Company and the
Continental Insurance Company move to compel Corning to produce
certain documents withheld as privileged.

Judge Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court, New York County,
ordered that Century's motion to compel (mtn. seq. no. 060) is
granted in part and denied in part.  Judge Bransten also ordered
that Continental's motion to compel (mtn. seq. no. 067) is
granted.

Judge Bransten held that the Court is mindful of the admonition in
Export-Import Bank of the United States: the "attorney-client
privilege should not be expanded without considerable caution." In
light of Corning's failure to satisfy its burden of demonstrating
the existence of a valid privilege, Continental's motion to compel
is granted, the judge concluded.

A full-text copy of the decision dated April 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/RdCB3J from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Weil-McLain Remanded for New Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Weil-McLain Company appeals the jury's award of damages and
punitive damages to plaintiffs on theories of negligence, product
liability, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability
arising from the death of Larry Kinseth as a result of exposure to
asbestos, and plaintiffs cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Iowa finds the district court abused its
discretion in denying Weil-McLain's motions for mistrial due to
statements of plaintiffs' counsel during closing arguments, in
violation of the court's motion in limine order.  The Court of
Appeals affirms the district court's rulings on the admissibility
of evidence.

The Court of Appeals concludes the district court erred by not
including McDonnell & Miller valves on the special verdict form,
but otherwise affirms the court's determination of which entities
should be included in the special verdict form for the allocation
of fault.

Due to the Court of Appeals' decision reversing and remanding for
a new trial, it makes no ruling on the award of punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals reverses and remands for new trial on the
appeal and affirms on the cross-appeal.

The case is SHARI KINSETH and RICKY KINSETH, Co-executors of the
Estate of Larry Kinseth, Deceased, and SHARI KINSETH,
Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. WEIL-
McLAIN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and STATE OF
IOWA, ex. rel. CIVIL REPARATIONS TRUST FUND, Intervenor, No. 15-
0943 (Iowa App.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated April 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/Dkw0Tv from Leagle.com.

Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Scott
W. Fowkes, Esq. -- scott.fowkes@kirkland.com -- Howard M. Kaplan,
Esq. -- howard.kaplan@kirkland.com -- and Ryan J. Moorman, Esq. --
ryan.moorman@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis L.L.P., Chicago,
Illinois;, William R. Hughes Jr. and Robert M. Livingston of
Stuart Tinley Law Firm, L.L.P., Council Bluffs; and Edward J.
McCambridge, Esq. -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- and Jason P.
Eckerly, Esq. -- jeckerly@smsm.com -- of Segal McCambridge Singer
& Mahoney, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; for defendant-appellant/cross-
appellee.

Misty Farris, Esq. -- mfarris@sgpblaw.com -- and Lisa W. Shirley,
Esq. -- of Simon Greenstone Panatier Barlett, P.C., Dallas, Texas,
and James H. Cook of Dutton, Braun, Staack & Hellman, P.L.C.,
Waterloo, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Richard E. Mull, Assistant
Attorney General, for intervenor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evenheat, Sargent OK'd to Pursue "Belac"
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Loretta Belac, has moved for the voluntary dismissal of
her personal injury complaint relating to her alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products.  Following numerous defendants'
motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction in
Rhode Island, the Plaintiff has brought her motion for voluntary
dismissal in order to refile the case in the State of
Pennsylvania.  Defendants Evenheat Kiln, Inc., and Sargent Art,
Inc., object to the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without
prejudice and request that the Motion be denied in order to first
hear summary judgment motions brought by both Defendants. In the
alternative, the two Defendants request that the Plaintiff's
motion to dismiss with prejudice be granted with respect to
Evenheat and Sargent Art.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, finds that a
dismissal without prejudice to all named defendants would cause
prejudice to Defendants Evenheat and Sargent Art, since both have
actively participated in litigation and have pending summary
judgment motions.  Therefore, the Superior Court denies the
Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal with respect to
Defendants Evenheat and Sargent Art.  However, the Superior Court
grants the Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, with respect to all other defendants in the matter.
The Superior Court gave one month for the Plaintiff to respond to
Evenheat and Sargent Art's motions for summary judgment, and will
schedule oral arguments on those motions at a later date.

The case is LORETTA BELAC, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.
Defendants, C.A. No. PC-16-0544 (R.I. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 20, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/TvazHm from Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., For Plaintiff, can be reached at:

     450 N Broadway
     East Providence, RI 02914
     Phone: 401-351-6400
     Fax: 401-351-6401

Andrew R. McConville, Esq. -- amcconville@cetllp.com -- Marc E.
Finkel, Esq. -- marc.finkel@leclairryan.com -- Lisa M. Kresge,
Esq. -- lkresge@brcsm.com -- Kevin McAllister, Esq. --
kmcallister@brcsm.com -- For Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Ct. Throws Out Appeal from Ford Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's
partial summary judgment decision relating to asbestos replacement
brake parts made by third party suppliers in the complaint filed
by Donna F. Walls and Collin Walls against Ford Motor Company.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Superior Court erred when it granted
partial summary judgment because Ford had a duty to warn Mr. Walls
about the hazards associated with servicing replacement asbestos
brake parts manufactured by third parties and installed in Ford
vehicles.

The Supreme Court held that it need not reach the central question
presented in this appeal -- whether an automobile manufacturer
such as Ford has a duty to warn about the dangers associated with
replacement brake parts manufactured by third parties for use in
its vehicles -- because the jury has determined that Ford was not
negligent in failing to warn Mr. Walls about the dangers posed by
Ford original and replacement asbestos brake parts.  The Supreme
Court further held that if Ford was not negligent for failing to
warn about the dangers associated with its original and
replacement asbestos brake parts, it could not have been negligent
in failing to warn about the dangers of third party asbestos
replacement brake parts.  Thus, any error in the summary judgment
decision would be harmless error, the Supreme Court concluded.

The case is IN RE: ASEBESTOS LITIGATION. DONNA F. WALLS,
individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of JOHN W. WALLS,
JR., deceased, and COLLIN WALLS, as surviving child, Plaintiffs
Below, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants Below,
Appellees, No. 389, 2016 (Del.).

A full-text copy of the Order penned by Justice Collins J. Seitz,
Jr., dated April 21, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/OMkP3M
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Preclude Brodkin Testimony Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JEANNE EVANS as
Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK W. EVANS and JEANNE EVANS as
spouse, Plaintiffs, v. 3 M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al Defendants, Docket No. 190109/15,
Motion Sequence No. 10 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Peter H. Moulton of the
Supreme Court, New York Country, denied Defendant's omnibus motion
in limine and held that a Frye hearing is not warranted.

Defendants submit a joint omnibus motion in limine to preclude,
among other things, the causation opinions of Plaintiffs' experts'
Dr. Carl Brodkin, Dr. Arnold Brody and Dr. John Maddox.
Alternatively, Defendants seek a Frye hearing.  The sole defendant
remaining in this action is Burnham LLC f/k/a Burnham Corporation.
The separate motion by ECR International, Inc., for the same
relief, is now moot in light of a recent settlement.

Judge Moulton held that the Defendant's motion in limine to
preclude plaintiffs' causation experts is denied.  Dr. Brodkin's
66-page report establishes a sufficient basis, at this juncture,
for his anticipated opinion at trial that Burnham products were a
substantial factor in causing Mr. Evans' disease.  Defendant
failed to demonstrate that Dr. Brodkin's opinion is insufficient
in light of Dr. Brodkin's quantification of the ADF of exposure
for boilers and boiler products, Judge Moulton concluded.

A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision dated April 14, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/sJYJwl from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Reverses Pa. Insurance Exclusion Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on April
21, 2017, was asked to decide which of two companies will bear
costs associated with a staggering number of asbestos claims.
These companies -- a historical manufacturer of asbestos-
containing products and its insurer -- dispute the rightful
allocation of asbestos-related losses under thirty-year-old excess
insurance policies.  The Third Circuit said that while the
policies are dated, the consequences of its interpretation are
immediate both to the parties at hand and to those insurers and
insureds whose relationships are similarly governed.

The chief issue on appeal is whether a policy exclusion that
disclaims losses "arising out of asbestos" will prevent a
manufacturer from obtaining indemnification for thousands of
negotiated settlements with plaintiffs who have suffered adverse
health effects from exposure to its asbestos-containing products.

The answer, according to the Third Circuit, hinges on whether the
language of the exclusion is ambiguous.  After a bench trial, the
District Court found that the phrase "arising out of asbestos"
contained latent ambiguity because the exclusion could reasonably
be read to exclude only losses related to raw asbestos, as opposed
to losses related to asbestos-containing products.

The Third Circuit disagrees, and held that the phrase "arising out
of," when used in a Pennsylvania insurance exclusion,
unambiguously requires "but for" causation.  Because the losses
relating to the underlying asbestos suits would not have occurred
but for asbestos, raw or within finished products, the Third
Circuit will reverse the judgment of the District Court.

The appeals case is GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, v. FIRST STATE
INSURANCE CO; WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Successor to, or,
f/k/a Puritan Insurance Company; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY;
CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD ACCIDENT And INDEMNITY CO;
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO; REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY;
SENTRY INSURANCE, Successor to, or, f/k/a Vanliner Insurance
Company, f/k/a Great SW Fire Insurance Co; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
INS. CO; AIU INSURANCE COMPANY; HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY;
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO, Successor to, or, f/k/a Aetna
Casualty & Surety Company; AMERICAN EMPIRE INSURANCE CO;
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE CO Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company (f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company), Appellant,
No. 15-3409 (3d Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/Pn4hWK from Leagle.com.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
[ARGUED], Richard J. Doren, Esq. -- rdoren@gibsondunn.com --
Blaine H. Evanson, Esq. -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN
& CRUTCHER, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

Samuel J. Arena, Jr., Esq. -- sarena@stradley.com -- Daniel T.
Fitch, Esq. -- dfitch@stradley.com -- William T. Mandia, Esq. --
wmandia@stradley.com -- STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, 2005
Market Street, Suite 2600, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for
Appellant, Travelers Surety and Casualty, Company.

Michael Conley [ARGUED], Meghan Finnerty, Mark. E. Gottlieb,
William H. Pillsbury, OFFIT KURMAN, 1801 Market Street, 23rd
Floor, Ten Penn Center, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Howard J. Bashman, Law Offices of Howard J. Bashman, 2300 Computer
Avenue, Suite G-22, Willow Grove, PA 19090, Counsel for Appellee,
General Refractories Company.

Laura A. Foggan, Esq. -- lfoggan@crowell.com --CROWELL & MORING,
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004, Counsel for
Amicus Appellant American Insurance, Association and Complex
Insurance Claims, Litigation Association.

John N. Ellison, Esq., REED SMITH, 1717 Arch Street, Three Logan
Square, Suite 3100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amicus
Appellant United Policyholders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Review Jurisdiction Ruling in PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DIANE MACCORMACK, NANCY BROUDY and KAREN
LOFTUS, as Special Personal Representatives of BERJ HOVSEPIAN,
deceased, Plaintiffs, v. THE ADEL WIGGINS GROUP, individually and
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-414-CEJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Carol E.
Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the motion of
defendant CBS Corporation to reconsider.

Plaintiffs are the special personal representatives of Berj
Hovsepian (Hovsepian), now deceased.  Hovsepian was a civilian
employee of the United States Navy from 1958 until 1964, in
Boston, Massachusetts.  He contracted asbestos-related
mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of exposure to products that
were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the
defendants, including defendant CBS Corporation.

In December 2015, Hovsepian initiated an action in the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, naming defendant CBS and
others as defendants in an eight-count complaint asserting common
law negligence claims. The action was then removed to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1442(a)(1) and 1446.  Defendant CBS
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and on August 5, 2016, the Court denied the motion.  The Court
later denied defendant CBS's related motion for certification of a
question for interlocutory appeal. In the instant motion,
defendant CBS moves for reconsideration of the Court's order
denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Jackson held, "Specific personal jurisdiction can be
exercised by a federal court in a diversity suit only if
authorized by the forum state's long-arm statute and permitted by
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."  Although
some courts collapse the analysis, these inquiries are separate,
the judge said.

"The reach of a state long arm statute is a question of state
law," while "the extent to which the reach of a long arm statute
is limited by due process is a question of federal law," Judge
Jackson added.

Judge Jackson further held that as discussed in this Court's prior
order, Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir.
1990) and its progeny provided the sole basis for the exercise of
jurisdiction over defendant CBS.  This is because none of the acts
alleged in plaintiffs' amended complaint occurred in Missouri,
such that Missouri's long-arm statute applies, Judge Jackson
pointed out.  Plaintiffs do not dispute this prior finding.
Specific personal jurisdiction, therefore, does not lie, the judge
concluded.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated April 21, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/jaTXIk from Leagle.com.

Diane MacCormack, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla,
FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC.

Diane MacCormack, Plaintiff, represented by Sean Patrick Barth,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Nancy Broudy, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla, FLINT
LAW FIRM, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Karen Loftus, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Hulla, FLINT
LAW FIRM, LLC & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy A. McGuire,
O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy, BROWN
AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY AND
OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP,
Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Scott R.
Hunsaker, TUCKER ELLIS LLP & Patrick M. Barkley, TUCKER ELLIS LLP.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Cleaver Brooks Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, MORGAN AND LEWIS, LLP & Trevor Alan Sondag, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Agota Peterfy,
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Lamons Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
Lee, NELSEN & LEE, P.C. & Leo W. Nelsen, Jr., NELSEN & LEE, P.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, JOLEY
AND OLIVER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria
Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims vs. Conveyor Corp. Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, issued an order dated April 21, 2017, granting the
parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss and dismissing, without
prejudice, the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant United
Conveyor Corporation in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually and as Executrix
of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:15-cv-
00130-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of the Order is
available at https://is.gd/l2EYBl from Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP,
pro hac vice, W. Marlowe Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. &
William M. Graham, Wallace & Graham.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C., Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Airgas USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcoat P.C. & Joseph Lawrence Nelson, Dickie, McCamey
& Chilcote, PC.

Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Bowman White,
Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Carboline Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates,
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP, pro hac
vice, Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates & Marla Tun Reschly, K&L
Gates LLP.

Crane Co. -- Cochrane and Chapman Valve Co., Defendant,
represented by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice,
Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates LLP, Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates &
Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice.

Crane Co. -- Chempump, Defendant, represented by Gregory R.
Youman, K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates
LLP, Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates & Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L
Gates LLP, pro hac vice.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Bowman White, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice,
James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. & Philip C.
Reid, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., pro hac vice.

Flowserve Corporation -- Anchor/Darling Valve Company, Defendant,
represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.

Flowserve Corporation -- Byron Jackson Pump Company, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Linde LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert
Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by John T.
Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C..

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy
Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis
Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP &
William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Garlock's Ch. 11 Plan Set May 15
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North
Carolina scheduled the confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Enpro Industries, Inc., subsidiaries to commence
on May 15, 2017, 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 Joint Plan of Reorganization will resolve asbestos litigations
in which plaintiffs have alleged personal injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Enpro states: "The historical business operations of certain of
our subsidiaries, principally GST LLC and The Anchor Packing
Company, have resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs have 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 products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos fibers. Anchor is inactive and insolvent,
there is no remaining insurance coverage available to Anchor and
it has no assets. Our subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos
litigation and their relationships with insurance carriers has
been actively managed through another subsidiary, Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd. ("Garrison," collectively with
GST LLC and Anchor, "GST"). On the GST Petition Date, GST LLC,
Anchor and Garrison 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 to address these claims (the "GST Chapter 11 Case").
These subsidiaries have been deconsolidated from our financial
statements since the GST Petition Date.

"Although no current EnPro subsidiary other than GST LLC and
Anchor has ever made indemnity payments to asbestos claimants,
thousands of claims have been made in the past against Coltec
Industries Inc., a subsidiary which has since been merged into our
OldCo, LLC subsidiary, and its former businesses based principally
on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing gaskets and other
components in equipment sold by those businesses. Coltec and its
insurers have spent several million dollars defending those
claims. At the GST Petition Date, thousands of claims alleging
exposure to asbestos contained in products sold by Coltec and its
former businesses were pending, but have been stayed by the
Bankruptcy Court during the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case.

"On March 17, 2016, we announced that we had reached a
comprehensive consensual settlement to resolve current and future
asbestos claims. The Consensual Settlement was reached with both
the official committee representing current asbestos claimants
(the "GST Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee") in the GST
Chapter 11 Case and the court-appointed representative of future
asbestos claimants (the "GST Future Claimants' Representative") in
the GST Chapter 11 Case, as well as with ad-hoc representatives
for current and future asbestos claimants (the "Ad-hoc
Representatives") against Coltec. The terms of the settlement are
set forth in the Term Sheet for Permanent Resolution of All
Present and Future GST Asbestos Claims and Coltec Asbestos Claims
dated March 17, 2016 among EnPro, Coltec, GST, the GST Current
Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the GST Future Claimants'
Representative and the Ad-hoc Representatives included as Exhibit
99.2 to our Form 8-K furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 18, 2016. Under the Consensual Settlement, the
GST Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the GST Future
Claimants' Representative and the Ad-hoc Representatives agreed to
join GST and Coltec (and OldCo as the successor by merger to
Coltec) in proposing a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint
Plan") that incorporates the Consensual Settlement and to ask
asbestos claimants and the Bankruptcy Court and the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the
"District Court") to approve the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan was
filed with the Bankruptcy Court in the GST Chapter 11 Case on May
20, 2016 and technical amendments to the Joint Plan were filed
with the Bankruptcy Court on June 21, 2016, July 29, 2016 and
December 2, 2016. The Joint Plan supersedes all prior plans of
reorganization filed by GST in the GST Chapter 11 Case.

"If approved and consummated, the Joint Plan would permanently
resolve current and future asbestos claims against GST and OldCo,
as the successor by merger to Coltec, and would protect EnPro and
its subsidiaries from those claims, under Section 524(g) of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Before the Joint Plan may be consummated, it
is required to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court and the
District Court and by a vote of GST asbestos claimants and Coltec
asbestos claimants by 75% or more in number and at least two-
thirds (2/3) in dollar amount of claims that are actually voted.
The Consensual Settlement and Joint Plan provide that the Joint
Plan is a prepackaged plan of reorganization as to Coltec/OldCo
and that Coltec will undertake the Coltec Restructuring and
commence a Chapter 11 case to obtain confirmation of the Joint
Plan if Coltec asbestos claimants and GST asbestos claimants voted
in sufficient numbers to approve the Joint Plan. Accordingly, the
Coltec asbestos claimants and GST asbestos claimants were
solicited simultaneously for their vote on the approval of the
Joint Plan prior to the filing of a Chapter 11 case by Coltec or
OldCo. 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.

"The Joint Plan and Consensual Settlement contemplate that, as an
appropriate and necessary step to facilitate the implementation of
the Consensual Settlement and not to delay or hinder creditors or
the resolution of claims, Coltec would, subject to the receipt of
necessary consents, undergo a corporate restructuring (the "Coltec
Restructuring") in which all of its significant operating assets
and subsidiaries, which included each of our major business units,
would be distributed to a new direct EnPro subsidiary, EnPro
Holdings, Inc., which was formerly named New Coltec, Inc. EnPro
Holdings would also assume all of Coltec's non-asbestos
liabilities. The Coltec Restructuring was completed on December
31, 2016, and included the merger of Coltec with and into OldCo,
which is a direct subsidiary of EnPro Holdings. OldCo, as the
restructured entity, retained responsibility for all asbestos
claims and rights to certain insurance assets of Coltec, as well
as the business operated by our EnPro Learning System, LLC
subsidiary ("EnPro Learning System"), which provides occupational
safety training and consulting services to third parties. EnPro
Learning System was also merged into OldCo and had revenues in
2016 of approximately $0.4 million.

"In connection with the Coltec Restructuring, the obligations of
OldCo, as the successor by merger to Coltec, under an original
issue amount $73.4 million Amended and Restated Promissory Note
due January 1, 2018 (the "Coltec Note") in favor of GST LLC, and
Coltec's guaranty of an original issue amount $153.8 million
Amended and Restated Promissory Note due January 1, 2018 entered
into by our Stemco LP subsidiary in favor of GST LLC (the "Stemco
Note") were assumed by EnPro Holdings, and OldCo was released from
those obligations. In addition, the Coltec Note and the Stemco
Note were amended to extend their maturity date to January 1,
2018. Following the Coltec Restructuring and prior to the filing
of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition by OldCo, OldCo was released
from its obligations under our senior secured revolving credit
facility and designated as an "unrestricted subsidiary" under the
indenture governing our 5.875% Senior Notes due 2022, as a result
of which it was automatically released from its obligations under
such indenture. In connection with the restructuring, EnPro
Holdings entered into a keep well agreement with OldCo, which is
enforceable by third-party beneficiaries. Under the keep well
agreement, EnPro Holdings agreed to make equity contributions to
OldCo sufficient, together with other funds available to OldCo, to
permit OldCo to pay and discharge its liabilities as they become
due and payable, other than under the Coltec Note, the guarantee
of the Stemco Note, the senior secured revolving credit facility
and the indenture governing our 5.875% Senior Notes due 2022
(OldCo having been separately released from its obligations under
each of those instruments).

"The Joint Plan contemplates the establishment of a trust (the
"Trust") to be fully funded within a year of consummation of the
Joint Plan. The Trust is to be funded (i) with aggregate cash
contributions by GST LLC and Garrison of $370 million made at the
effective date of the Joint Plan, (ii) by the contribution made by
OldCo at the effective date of consummation of the Joint Plan of
$30 million in cash and an option, exercisable one year after the
effective date of consummation of the Joint Plan, permitting the
Trust to purchase for $1 shares of EnPro common stock having a
value of $20 million (with OldCo having the right to call the
option for payment of $20 million in cash at any time prior to the
first anniversary of the effective date, with the Trust having the
right to put the option to OldCo for payment by OldCo of $20
million on the day prior to the first anniversary of the effective
date and with the option terminating on the second anniversary of
the effective date of consummation of the Joint Plan in return for
payment to the Trust of $20 million), and (iii) by the obligation
under the Joint Plan 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. 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, the Trust would assume responsibility for all
present and future asbestos claims arising from the operations or
products of GST or Coltec/OldCo. Under the Joint Plan, all non-
asbestos creditors would be paid in full and EnPro, through its
subsidiaries, would retain ownership of OldCo, GST LLC and
Garrison.

"As contemplated by the Joint Plan and the Consensual Settlement,
on January 30, 2017 (the "OldCo Petition Date"), OldCo filed a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court (the
"OldCo Chapter 11 Case"). As a result of that filing, OldCo will
be deconsolidated from our financial statements commencing on the
OldCo Petition Date. On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order for the joint administration of the OldCo Chapter
11 Case with the GST Chapter 11 Case. The Bankruptcy Court has
scheduled the confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan to commence
on May 15, 2017 and set, as the deadlines for filing objections to
the Joint Plan, December 9, 2016 in the GST Chapter 11 Case and
March 24, 2017 in the OldCo Chapter 11 Case.

"Although no asbestos claimant or creditor filed any objection to
the Joint Plan in the GST Chapter 11 Case, objections have been
filed by the appointed bankruptcy administrator and by three
insurers. The technical objection filed by the bankruptcy
administrator, which is a non-judicial, federal appointee that is
involved in cases from a perspective independent of an interested
party, concerns the scope of the Joint Plan's "exculpatory"
provisions that would extend limited protection to the debtors in
the case, their affiliates, committees appointed in the case, the
future claimants' representative and their respective professional
advisors from liability for ancillary claims related to their
actions or failure to act in connection with the case.
The objections of the three insurers primarily concern the impact
of the Joint Plan on insurance policies and related contracts to
which they are parties. The hearing on objections to the Joint
Plan filed in both proceedings will be part of the confirmation
hearings for approval of the Joint Plan by the Bankruptcy Court
scheduled to commence on May 15, 2017.

"The Consensual Settlement includes as a condition to our
obligations to proceed with the settlement that EnPro, Coltec, GST
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, 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, we 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 $20 million (U.S.), payable on the fourth
anniversary of the effective date of the Joint Plan. Under the
Canadian Settlement, after the effective date of the Joint Plan,
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 to
the payment date at a discount rate of 4.5% per annum. This is
consistent with the present value estimate of approximately $17
million, before tax, that we committed for the resolution of these
claims when entering into the Consensual Settlement. In return,
the Provincial Boards have separately agreed to provide a covenant
not to sue EnPro, any of EnPro's affiliates or the Trust for any
present or future asbestos-related claims. On February 3, 2017,
the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Canadian
Settlement.

"The Consensual Settlement includes as an additional condition to
our obligations to proceed with the settlement that we receive a
private letter ruling from the IRS that the Trust will be
recognized as a "designated settlement fund" or "qualified
settlement fund" under section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code,
and any related regulations (or, if such a ruling is not
available, a legal opinion satisfactory in form and substance to
us that the IRS will so recognize the Trust). On February 6, 2017,
the IRS issued a private letter ruling satisfying this condition.

"Under the Consensual Settlement and Joint Plan, GST and OldCo
will retain their rights to seek reimbursement under insurance
policies for any amounts they have paid in the past to resolve
asbestos claims and for $480 million in aggregate contributions
they will make to the Trust under the Joint Plan. As of December
31, 2016, approximately $62.0 million of available products hazard
limits or insurance receivables arising from settlements with
insurance carriers existed to cover claims against both GST and
OldCo from solvent carriers with investment grade ratings. The
Joint Plan provides that GST and OldCo are entitled to collect and
retain 100% of any settlements and judgments related to these
insurance policies.

"In addition, Coltec purchased a number of primary and excess
general liability insurance policies that were in effect prior to
January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block"). The policies
provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the policy
periods and cover losses associated with product liability claims
against Coltec and certain of its subsidiaries. Asbestos claims
against GST are not covered under these policies because GST was
not a Coltec subsidiary prior to 1976.

"OldCo may have rights against primary and excess general
liability insurance policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block to
recover its contributions to the Trust. Such rights, however, are
disputed and uncertain. Of the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block, the
bulk of the primary coverage was provided under six policies
issued by Insurance Company of North America ("INA"). INA disputes
that coverage exists under these policies, claiming that Coltec
released such coverage when it settled coverage under separate
policies INA issued to GST and Anchor. In addition, $7.2 million
of the primary coverage in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block was
issued by American Motorists Insurance Co., which is in insolvency
proceedings.

"The Joint Plan provides that OldCo may retain the first $25
million of any settlements and judgments related to insurance
policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and OldCo and the Trust
will share equally in any settlements and judgments OldCo may
collect in excess of $25 million.

"The confirmation and consummation of the Joint Plan, and
accordingly the final resolution of asbestos claims against GST
and OldCo in accordance with the Joint Plan, are subject to a
number of risks and uncertainties, which could have the effect of
delaying or preventing the confirmation and consummation of the
Joint Plan, increasing our costs in connection with effecting the
Consensual Settlement, the Canadian Settlement and the
consummation of the Joint Plan or reducing the benefit to us
related to the consummation of the Joint Plan and the Canadian
Settlement. In light of these risks and uncertainties, we cannot
assure you that the Joint Plan and the Canadian Settlement will be
consummated on the time schedule that we anticipate or at all, or
if consummated that we will recognize all benefits from the
consummation of the Joint Plan and the Canadian Settlement that we
anticipate. These risks and uncertainties include:

   -- the risk that the Joint Plan is not approved by the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court and that orders so
approving the Joint Plan do not become final; and

   -- risks and uncertainties about whether any interested parties
may further object to the Joint Plan or appeal any order issued by
the Bankruptcy Court or District Court approving the Joint Plan,
which objections and appeals, even if favorably resolved, may
delay the consummation of the Joint Plan and increase our costs in
connection with such proceedings.

In addition, our subsidiaries' filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petitions and matters related to asbestos claims exposes us to a
number of other risks and uncertainties, including:

   -- Possible changes in the value of the deconsolidated
subsidiaries reflected in our financial statements. Our investment
in GST is, and for periods ending after the OldCo Petition Date
our investment in OldCo will be, subject to periodic reviews for
impairment. To estimate the fair value, the Company considers many
factors and uses both discounted cash flow and market valuation
approaches. The asbestos claims value is an important part of the
value of that investment. The actual value will be determined in
the Chapter 11 process, and accordingly adverse developments with
respect to the terms of the resolution of such claims that differ
from the terms of the Joint Plan and the Canadian Settlement may
materially adversely affect the value of our investments in GST
and OldCo.

   -- The financial viability of our subsidiaries' insurance
carriers and their reinsurance carriers, and our subsidiaries'
ability to collect on claims from them. Agreements with certain of
these insurance carriers and the terms of applicable policies
define specific annual amounts to be paid or limit the amount that
can be recovered in any one year, and accordingly substantial
insurance payments for submitted claims have been deferred and are
payable in installments through 2018, and an additional $38.0
million of other insurance payments may be payable only upon the
conclusion of the bankruptcy process. OldCo's ability to collect
insurance from policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block may
depend on litigation, the outcome, cost, and timing of which is
uncertain.

   -- The costs of the bankruptcy proceedings and the length of
time necessary to resolve the cases. Through December 31, 2016,
GST has recorded Chapter 11 case-related fees and expenses
totaling $159.9 million. We have recorded an additional $11.0
million in case-related fees and expenses incurred directly by
EnPro, Coltec and OldCo."

Enpro Industries Inc. -- http://www.enproindustries.com/-- is a
diversified manufacturer of proprietary engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Records $159.9MM Ch. 11 Related-Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., GST LLC, The Anchor
Packing Company (collectively GST) recorded Chapter 11 case-
related fees and expenses totaling $159.9 million from Petition
Date through December 31, 2016, according to Enpro Industries
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Enpro states:

"Our GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison subsidiaries filed voluntary
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions on the GST Petition Date with the
Bankruptcy Court as a result of tens of thousands of pending and
estimated future asbestos personal injury claims. The filings were
the initial step in a claims resolution process, which is ongoing.
The goal of the process is an efficient and permanent resolution
of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval
of a plan of reorganization that will establish a facility to
resolve and pay all asbestos claims.

"In November 2011, GST filed an initial proposed plan of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. GST's initial plan
called for a trust to be formed, to which GST and affiliates would
contribute $200 million and which would be the exclusive remedy
for future asbestos personal injury claimants -- those whose
claims arise after confirmation of the plan. The initial proposed
plan provided that each present asbestos personal injury claim
(any pending claim or one that arises between the GST Petition
Date and plan confirmation) would be assumed by reorganized GST
and resolved either by settlement, pursuant to a matrix contained
in the proposed plan or as otherwise agreed, or by payment in full
of any final judgment entered after trial in federal court.

"On April 13, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted a motion by GST
for the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the allowed amount of present
and future asbestos claims against GST for mesothelioma, a rare
cancer attributed to asbestos exposure, for purposes of
determining the feasibility of a proposed plan of reorganization.
The estimation trial began on July 22, 2013 and concluded on
August 22, 2013.

"On January 10, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges announced his
estimation decision in a 65-page order. Citing with approval the
methodology put forth by GST at trial, the judge determined that
$125 million is the amount sufficient to satisfy GST's liability
for present and future mesothelioma claims. Judge Hodges adopted
GST's "legal liability" approach to estimation, focused on the
merits of claims, and rejected asbestos claimant representatives'
approach, which focused solely on GST's historical settlement
history. The judge's liability determination is for mesothelioma
claims only. The court has not yet determined amounts for GST's
liability for other asbestos claims and for administrative costs
that would be required to review and process claims and payments,
which will add to the amount.

"In his opinion, Judge Hodges wrote, "The best evidence of
Garlock's aggregate responsibility is the projection of its legal
liability that takes into consideration causation, limited
exposure and the contribution of exposures to other products."
The decision validates the positions that GST has been asserting
for the more than four years it had been in the GST Chapter 11
Case. Following are several important findings in the opinion:

-- Garlock's products resulted in a relatively low exposure to
asbestos to a limited population, and its legal responsibility
for causing mesothelioma is relatively de minimis.

-- Chrysotile, the asbestos fiber type used in almost all of
Garlock's asbestos products, is far less toxic than other forms of
asbestos. The court found reliable and persuasive Garlock's expert
epidemiologist, who testified that there is no statistically
significant association between low dose chrysotile exposure and
mesothelioma.

-- The population that was exposed to Garlock's products was
necessarily exposed to far greater quantities of higher potency
asbestos from the products of others.

-- The estimates of Garlock's aggregate liability that are based
on its historic settlement values are not reliable because those
values are infected with the impropriety of some law firms and
inflated by the cost of defense.

"In June 2014, the GST Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee filed
a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking the court to re-open the
estimation process for further discovery and alleging that GST
misled the court in various respects during the estimation trial.
On December 4, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Committee's
motion to re-open.

"In May 2014, GST filed its first amended proposed plan of
reorganization. The first amended plan provided $275 million in
total funding for (a) present and future asbestos claims against
GST that have not been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to
the GST Petition Date, and (b) administrative and litigation
costs. The first amended plan revised and replaced the initial
plan that had been filed in November 2011.

"On January 14, 2015, we announced that GST and we had reached
agreement with the GST Future Claimants' Representative that
included a second amended plan of reorganization. The second
amended plan was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 14,
2015 and superseded the prior plans filed by GST. The GST Future
Claimants' Representative agreed to support, recommend and vote in
favor of the second amended plan.

"The second amended plan would have provided for the establishment
of two facilities -- a settlement facility (which would receive
$220 million from GST and $30 million from Coltec, as part of the
"Parent Settlement," upon consummation of the second amended plan
and additional contributions from GST aggregating $77.5 million
over the seven years) and a litigation fund (which would receive
$30 million from GST) to fund the defense and payment of claims of
claimants who elect to pursue litigation under the second amended
plan rather than accept the settlement option under the second
amended plan. Funds contained in the settlement facility and the
litigation fund would have provided the exclusive remedies for
current and future GST asbestos claimants other than claimants
whose claims had been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to
the GST Petition Date and were not paid prior to the GST Petition
Date. The second amended plan had provided that GST would pay in
full claims that had been resolved by settlement or verdict prior
to the GST Petition Date that were not paid prior to the GST
Petition Date (with respect to claims resolved by verdict, such
payment would be made only to the extent the verdict becomes
final). The second amended plan had provided that if the actual
amount of claims that had been resolved by settlement or verdict
prior to the GST Petition Date that were not paid prior to the GST
Petition Date was less than $17.0 million GST would contribute the
difference to the settlement facility. In addition, the second
amended plan had provided that, during the 40-year period
following confirmation of the second amended plan, GST would, if
necessary, make supplementary annual contributions, subject to
specified maximum annual amounts that decline over the period, to
maintain a specified balance at specified dates of the litigation
fund. Under the second amended plan, the maximum aggregate amount
of all such contingent supplementary contributions over that
period would have been $132 million. GST and we believe that
initial contributions to the litigation fund under the second
amended plan would likely have been sufficient to permit the
balance of that facility to exceed the specified thresholds over
the 40-year period and, accordingly, that the low end of a range
of reasonably possible loss associated with these contingent
supplementary contributions would have been $1. The second amended
plan included provisions referred to as the "Parent Settlement"
for the resolution and extinguishment of any and all alleged
derivative claims against us based on GST asbestos products and
entry of an injunction that would permanently protect us from the
assertion of such claims. As consideration for the Parent
Settlement, (a) Coltec would have contributed $30 million of the
amount proposed to be paid into the settlement facility to pay
future claimants, (b) Coltec would have funded Anchor's costs of
dissolution (up to $500,000), (c) EnPro would have guaranteed all
contributions to the settlement facility and litigation fund by
GST after the effective date of consummation of the second amended
plan, and (d) Coltec and its affiliates would have subordinated
their interests in certain insurance coverage to GST's obligations
to make payments to the settlement facility and litigation fund
after the effective date of consummation of the second amended
plan. Under the terms of the second amended plan, we would retain
100% of the equity interests of GST LLC.

"The second amended plan would have provided for the
extinguishment of any derivative claims against us based on GST
asbestos products and operations, but would not protect us or our
other subsidiaries, including Coltec, from non-derivative asbestos
claims. Although no current EnPro subsidiary other than GST LLC
and Anchor has ever made indemnity payments to asbestos claimants,
thousands of claims have been made in the past against Coltec and
its former businesses based principally on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing gaskets and other components in equipment sold
by those businesses. Coltec and its insurers have spent several
million dollars defending those claims. At the GST Petition Date,
thousands of claims alleging exposure to asbestos contained in
products sold by Coltec and its former businesses were pending,
but have been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court during the pendency
of the GST Chapter 11 Case.

"While the GST Future Claimants' Representative had agreed to
support the second amended plan of reorganization, the GST Current
Asbestos Claimants Committee and their law firms opposed the
second amended plan of reorganization. Accordingly, GST continued
to seek a consensual resolution that would also be acceptable to
representatives of current asbestos claimants as well as the GST
Future Claimants' Representative. On March 17, 2016, we announced
that we had reached a comprehensive consensual settlement (the
"Consensual Settlement") to resolve current and future asbestos
claims. The Consensual Settlement was reached with both the GST
Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee and GST Future Claimants'
Representative, as well as with Ad-hoc Representatives for current
and future asbestos claimants against Coltec. The terms of the
settlement are set forth in the Term Sheet for Permanent
Resolution of All Present and Future GST Asbestos Claims and
Coltec Asbestos Claims dated March 17, 2016 among EnPro, Coltec,
GST, the GST Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the GST Future
Claimants' Representative and the Ad-hoc Representatives included
as Exhibit 99.2 to our Form 8-K furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016. Under the Consensual
Settlement, the GST Current Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the GST
Future Claimants' Representative and the Ad-hoc Representatives
agreed to join GST and Coltec (and our OldCo, LLC subsidiary, as
the successor by merger to Coltec) in proposing a joint plan of
reorganization that incorporates the Consensual Settlement and to
ask asbestos claimants and the Bankruptcy Court and the District
Court to approve the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court on May 20, 2016 and technical amendments to the
Joint Plan were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on June 21, 2016,
July 29, 2016 and December 2, 2016. The Joint Plan supersedes all
prior plans of reorganization filed by GST in the GST Chapter 11
Case.

If approved and consummated, the Joint Plan would permanently
resolve current and future asbestos claims against GST and OldCo,
as the successor by merger to Coltec, and would protect all of
EnPro and its subsidiaries from those claims, under Section 524(g)
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Before the Joint Plan may be
consummated, it is required to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court
and the District Court and by a vote of GST asbestos claimants and
Coltec asbestos claimants by 75% or more in number and at least
two-thirds (2/3) in dollar amount of claims that are actually
voted.

"The Consensual Settlement and Joint Plan provide that the Joint
Plan is a prepackaged plan of reorganization as to Coltec/OldCo
and that Coltec would undertake the Coltec Restructuring and
commence a Chapter 11 case to obtain confirmation of the Joint
Plan if Coltec asbestos claimants and GST asbestos claimants voted
in sufficient numbers to approve the Joint Plan. Accordingly, the
Coltec asbestos claimants and GST asbestos claimants were
solicited simultaneously for their vote on the approval of the
Joint Plan prior to the filing of a Chapter 11 case by Coltec or
OldCo. 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.

"The Joint Plan and Consensual Settlement contemplate that, as an
appropriate and necessary step to facilitate the implementation of
the Consensual Settlement and not to delay or hinder creditors or
the resolution of claims, Coltec would, subject to the receipt of
necessary consents, undergo the Coltec Restructuring in which all
of its significant operating assets and subsidiaries, which
included each of our major business units, would be distributed to
a new direct EnPro subsidiary, EnPro Holdings, which was formerly
named New Coltec, Inc. EnPro Holdings would also assume all of
Coltec's non-asbestos liabilities. The Coltec Restructuring was
completed on December 31, 2016, and included the merger of Coltec
with and into OldCo, which is a direct subsidiary of EnPro
Holdings. OldCo, as the restructured entity, retained
responsibility for all asbestos claims and rights to certain
insurance assets of Coltec, as well as the business operated by
our EnPro Learning System subsidiary, which provides occupational
safety training and consulting services to third parties. EnPro
Learning System was also merged into OldCo and had revenues in
2016 of approximately $0.4 million.

"In connection with the Coltec Restructuring, the obligations of
OldCo, as the successor by merger to Coltec, under an original
issue amount $73.4 million Amended and Restated Promissory Note
due January 1, 2018 (the "Coltec Note") in favor of GST LLC, and
Coltec's guaranty of an original issue amount $153.8 million
Amended and Restated Promissory Note due January 1, 2018 entered
into by our Stemco LP subsidiary in favor of GST LLC (the "Stemco
Note") were assumed by EnPro Holdings, and OldCo was released from
those obligations. In addition, the Coltec Note and the Stemco
Note were amended to extend their maturity date to January 1,
2018. Following the Coltec Restructuring and prior to the filing
of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition by OldCo, OldCo was released
from its obligations under our senior secured revolving credit
facility and designated as an "unrestricted subsidiary" under the
indenture governing our 5.875% Senior Notes due 2022, as a result
of which it was automatically released from its obligations under
such indenture. In connection with the restructuring, EnPro
Holdings entered into a keep well agreement with OldCo, which is
enforceable by third-party beneficiaries. Under the keep well
agreement, EnPro Holdings agreed to make equity contributions to
OldCo sufficient, together with other funds available to OldCo, to
permit OldCo to pay and discharge its liabilities as they become
due and payable, other than under the Coltec Note, the guarantee
of the Stemco Note, the senior secured revolving credit facility
and the indenture governing our 5.875% Senior Notes due 2022
(OldCo having been separately released from its obligations under
each of those instruments).

"The Joint Plan contemplates the establishment of the Trust to be
fully funded within a year of consummation of the Joint Plan. The
Trust is to be funded (i) with aggregate cash contributions by GST
LLC and Garrison of $370.0 million made at the effective date of
the Joint Plan, (ii) by the contribution made by OldCo at the
effective date of consummation of the Joint Plan of $30 million in
cash and an option, exercisable one year after the effective date
of consummation of the Joint Plan, permitting the Trust to
purchase for $1 shares of EnPro common stock having a value of $20
million (with OldCo having the right to call the option for
payment of $20 million in cash at any time prior to the first
anniversary of the effective date, with the Trust having the right
to put the option to OldCo for payment by OldCo of $20 million on
the day prior to the first anniversary of the effective date and
with the option terminating on the second anniversary of the
effective date of consummation of the Joint Plan in return for
payment to the Trust of $20 million), and (iii) by the obligation
under the Joint Plan 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. 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, the Trust would assume responsibility for all
present and future asbestos claims arising from the operations or
products of GST or Coltec/OldCo. Under the Joint Plan, all non-
asbestos creditors would be paid in full and EnPro, through its
subsidiaries, would retain ownership of OldCo, GST LLC and
Garrison.

"As contemplated by the Joint Plan and the Consensual Settlement,
on January 30, 2017, OldCo filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
with the Bankruptcy Court. As a result of that filing, OldCo will
be deconsolidated from our financial statements commencing on the
OldCo Petition Date. On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court
issued an order for the joint administration of the OldCo Chapter
11 Case with the GST Chapter 11 Case. The Bankruptcy Court has
scheduled the confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan to commence
on May 15, 2017 and set, as the deadlines for filing objections to
the Joint Plan, December 9, 2016 in the GST Chapter 11 Case and
March 24, 2017 in the OldCo Chapter 11 Case.

"Although no asbestos claimant or creditor filed any objection to
the Joint Plan in the GST Chapter 11 Case, objections have been
filed by the appointed bankruptcy administrator and by three
insurers. The technical objection filed by the bankruptcy
administrator, which is a non-judicial, federal appointee that is
involved in cases from a perspective independent of an interested
party, concerns the scope of the Joint Plan's "exculpatory"
provisions that would extend limited protection to the debtors in
the case, their affiliates, committees appointed in the case, the
future claimants' representative and their respective professional
advisors from liability for ancillary claims related to their
actions or failure to act in connection with the case. The
objections of the three insurers primarily concern the impact of
the Joint Plan on insurance policies and related contracts to
which they are parties. The hearing on objections to the Joint
Plan filed in both proceedings will be part of the confirmation
hearings for approval of the Joint Plan by the Bankruptcy Court
scheduled to commence on May 15, 2017.

"The Consensual Settlement includes as a condition to our
obligations to proceed with the settlement that EnPro, Coltec, GST
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, with
the Provincial Boards resolving remedies the Provincial Boards in
Canada 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, we
entered into 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 $20 million (U.S.), payable on the fourth
anniversary of the effective date of the Joint Plan. Under the
Canadian Settlement, after the effective date of the Joint Plan,
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 to
the payment date at a discount rate of 4.5% per annum. This is
consistent with the present value estimate of approximately $17
million, before tax, that we committed for the resolution of these
claims when entering into the Consensual Settlement. In return,
the Provincial Boards have separately agreed to provide a covenant
not to sue EnPro, any of EnPro's affiliates or the Trust for any
present or future asbestos-related claims. On February 3, 2017,
the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Canadian
Settlement.

"The Consensual Settlement includes as an additional condition to
our obligations to proceed with the settlement that we receive a
private letter ruling from the IRS that the Trust will be
recognized as a "designated settlement fund" or "qualified
settlement fund" under section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code,
and any related regulations (or, if such a ruling is not
available, a legal opinion satisfactory in form and substance to
us that the IRS will so recognize the Trust). On February 6, 2017,
the IRS issued a private letter ruling satisfying this condition.

"Under the Consensual Settlement and Joint Plan, GST and OldCo
will retain their rights to seek reimbursement under insurance
policies for any amounts they have paid in the past to resolve
asbestos claims and for $480 million in aggregate contributions
they will make to the Trust under the Joint Plan. As of December
31, 2016, approximately $62.0 million of available products hazard
limits or insurance receivables arising from settlements with
insurance carriers existed to cover claims against both GST and
OldCo from solvent carriers with investment grade ratings. The
Joint Plan provides that GST and OldCo are entitled to collect and
retain 100% of any settlements and judgments related to these
insurance policies.

"In addition, Coltec purchased a number of primary and excess
general liability insurance policies that were in effect prior to
January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block"). The policies
provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the policy
periods and cover losses associated with product liability claims
against Coltec and certain of its subsidiaries. Asbestos claims
against GST are not covered under these policies because GST was
not a Coltec subsidiary prior to 1976.

"OldCo may have rights against primary and excess general
liability insurance policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block to
recover its contributions to the Trust. Such rights, however, are
disputed and uncertain. Of the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block, the
bulk of the primary coverage was provided under six policies
issued by Insurance Company of North America ("INA"). INA disputes
that coverage exists under these policies, claiming that Coltec
released such coverage when it settled coverage under separate
policies INA issued to GST and Anchor. In addition, $7.2 million
of the primary coverage in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block was
issued by American Motorists Insurance Co., which is in insolvency
proceedings.

"The Joint Plan provides that OldCo may retain the first $25
million of any settlements and judgments related to insurance
policies in the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and OldCo and the Trust
will share equally in any settlements and judgments OldCo may
collect in excess of $25 million.

"The confirmation and consummation of the Joint Plan, and
accordingly the final resolution of asbestos claims against GST
and OldCo in accordance with the Joint Plan, are subject to a
number of risks and uncertainties, which could have the effect of
delaying or preventing the confirmation and consummation of the
Joint Plan, increasing our costs in connection with effecting the
Consensual Settlement, the Canadian Settlement and the
consummation of the Joint Plan or reducing the benefit to us
related to the consummation of the Joint Plan and the Canadian
Settlement. In light of these risks and uncertainties, we cannot
assure you that the Joint Plan and the Canadian Settlement will be
consummated on the time schedule that we anticipate or at all, or
if consummated that we will recognize all benefits from the
consummation of the Joint Plan and the Canadian Settlement that we
anticipate.

"From the GST Petition Date through December 31, 2016, GST has
recorded Chapter 11 case-related fees and expenses totaling $159.9
million. The total includes $86.5 million for fees and expenses of
GST's counsel and experts; $59.3 million for fees and expenses of
counsel and experts for the Current Asbestos Claimants Committee,
and $14.1 million for the fees and expenses of the Future
Claimants' Representative and his counsel and experts. GST
recorded $15.8 million of those case related fees and expenses in
2016 compared to $25.6 million in 2015 and $16.5 million in 2014.
EnPro has recorded an additional $11.0 million of expenses related
to the GST Chapter 11 Case from the GST Petition Date, $2.0
million of which was recorded in 2016."

Enpro Industries Inc. -- http://www.enproindustries.com/-- is a
diversified manufacturer of proprietary engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST, Anchor End 900,000 Claims, Settle for $1.4B
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GST LLC and The Anchor Packing Company have processed more than
900,000 claims to conclusion, and, together with insurers, have
paid over $1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400
million in fees and expenses, according to Enpro Industries Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Enpro states: "The historical business operations of GST LLC and
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 in products produced or sold by GST
LLC or Anchor, together with products produced and sold by
numerous other companies. GST LLC and Anchor manufactured and/or
sold industrial sealing products that contained encapsulated
asbestos fibers. Other of our subsidiaries that manufactured or
sold equipment that may have at various times in the past
contained asbestos-containing components have also been named in a
number of asbestos lawsuits, but only GST LLC and Anchor have ever
paid an asbestos claim.

"Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against GST
LLC in 1975, GST LLC and Anchor have processed more than 900,000
claims to conclusion, and, together with insurers, have paid over
$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and over $400 million in
fees and expenses. Our subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos
litigation and their relationships with insurance carriers have
been managed through Garrison.

"Starting in 2000, the top-tier asbestos defendants -- companies
that paid most of the plaintiffs' damages because they produced
and sold huge quantities of highly friable asbestos products --
sought bankruptcy protection and stopped paying asbestos claims in
the tort system. The bankruptcies of many additional producers of
friable asbestos products followed. The plaintiffs could no longer
pursue actions against these large defendants during the pendency
of their bankruptcy proceedings, even though these defendants had
historically been determined to be the largest contributors to
asbestos-related injuries. Many plaintiffs pursued GST LLC in
civil court actions to recover compensation formerly paid by top-
tier bankrupt companies under state law principles of joint and
several liability and began identifying GST LLC's non-friable
sealing products as a primary cause of their asbestos diseases,
while generally denying exposure to the friable products of
companies in bankruptcy. GST LLC believes this targeting strategy
effectively shifted damages caused by top-tier defendants that
produced friable asbestos products to GST LLC, thereby materially
increasing GST LLC's cost of defending and resolving claims.

"Almost all of the top-tier defendants that sought bankruptcy
relief in the early 2000s have now emerged, or are positioning to
emerge, from bankruptcy. Their asbestos liabilities have been
assumed by wealthy 524(g) trusts created in the bankruptcies with
assets contributed by the emerging former defendants and their
affiliates. With the emergence of these companies from bankruptcy,
many plaintiffs seek compensation from the 524(g) trusts. These
trusts were funded with aggregate assets exceeding $30 billion
($36.8 billion according to a study released in September 2011 by
the United States Government Accountability Office) specifically
set aside to compensate individuals with asbestos diseases caused
by the friable products of those defendants. We believed that as
billions of dollars of 524(g) trust assets became available to
claimants, defendants in the state court tort system would obtain
significant reductions in their costs to defend and resolve
claims. As of the GST Petition Date, however, the establishment of
these 524(g) trusts had taken longer than anticipated and the
trusts had a significant backlog of claims that accumulated while
the trusts were being established. Additionally, procedures
adopted for the submissions of asbestos claims in bankruptcy cases
and against 524(g) trusts make it difficult for GST LLC and other
tort-system co-defendants to gain access to information about
claims made against bankrupt defendants or the accompanying
evidence of exposure to the asbestos-containing products of such
bankrupt defendants. We believe that these procedures enable
claimants to "double dip" by collecting payments from remaining
defendants in the tort system under joint-and-several-liability
principles for injuries caused by the former top-tier defendants
while also collecting substantial additional amounts from 524(g)
trusts established by those former defendants to pay asbestos
claims. Because of these factors, while several 524(g) trusts had
begun making substantial payments to claimants prior to the GST
Petition Date, GST LLC had not yet experienced a significant
reduction in damages being sought from GST LLC.

             GST Chapter 11 Filing and Effect

"On the GST Petition Date, GST LLC, Garrison Litigation Management
Group, Ltd. and Anchor filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code. The filings were the initial step in a claims resolution
process, which is ongoing.

(Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., GST LLC, The Anchor
Packing Company are collectively referred to as GST).

"During the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, certain actions
proposed to be taken by GST not in the ordinary course of business
are subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a result,
during the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, we do not have
exclusive control over these companies. Accordingly, as required
by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated beginning on the GST Petition
Date.

"As a result of the initiation of the GST Chapter 11 Case, the
resolution of asbestos claims is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court. The filing of the GST Chapter 11 Case
automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily
injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such
lawsuits, against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting
asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,
including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the
pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, subject to further order. As
a result, except as a result of the resolution of appeals from
verdicts rendered prior to the GST Petition Date and the
elimination of claims as a result of information obtained in the
GST Chapter 11 Case, the numbers of asbestos claims pending
against our subsidiaries have not changed since the GST Petition
Date, and those numbers continue to be as reported in our 2009
Form 10-K and our quarterly reports for the first and second
quarters of 2010."

Enpro Industries Inc. -- http://www.enproindustries.com/-- is a
diversified manufacturer of proprietary engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST LLC Pays $563.2MM for Mesothelioma Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
GST LLC has paid $563.2 million to resolve a total of 15,300
mesothelioma claims, and another 5,700 mesothelioma claims have
been dismissed without payment, according to Enpro Industries
Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., GST LLC, The Anchor
Packing Company is collectively referred to as GST.

Enpro states: "On the GST Petition Date, according to Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd.'s claim records, there were more
than 90,000 total claims pending against GST LLC, of which
approximately 5,800 were claims alleging the disease mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the protective lining of many of
the body's internal organs, principally the lungs. One cause of
mesothelioma is believed to be exposure to asbestos. As a result
of asbestos tort reform during the 2000s, most active asbestos-
related lawsuits, and a large majority of the amount of payments
made by our subsidiaries in the years immediately preceding the
GST Petition Date, have been of claims alleging mesothelioma. In
total, GST LLC has paid $563.2 million to resolve a total of
15,300 mesothelioma claims, and another 5,700 mesothelioma claims
have been dismissed without payment.

"In order to estimate the allowed amount for mesothelioma claims
against GST, the Bankruptcy Court approved a process whereby all
current GST LLC mesothelioma claimants were required to respond to
a questionnaire about their claims. Questionnaires were
distributed to the mesothelioma claimants identified in Garrison's
claims database. Many of the 5,800 claimants (over 500) did not
respond to the questionnaire at all; many others (more than 1,900)
clarified that: claimants do not have mesothelioma, claimants
cannot establish exposure to GST products, claims were dismissed,
settled or withdrawn, claims were duplicates of other filed
claims, or claims were closed or inactive. Still others responded
to the questionnaire but their responses were deficient in some
material respect. As a result of this process, less than 3,300
claimants presented questionnaires asserting mesothelioma claims
against GST LLC as of the GST Petition Date and many of them
either did not establish exposure to GST products or had claims
that are otherwise deficient.

"Since the GST Petition Date, many asbestos-related lawsuits have
been filed by claimants against other companies in state and
federal courts, and many of those claimants might also have
included GST LLC as a defendant but for the bankruptcy injunction.

               Claims Filed in GST Chapter 11 Case

"Proofs of claim involving approximately 180,000 claims were filed
on or prior to October 6, 2015, the Claims Bar Date, in the GST
Chapter 11 Case. All other potential claims based on asbestos-
related diseases diagnosed on or before August 1, 2014 for which
lawsuits against any defendant or claims against any trusts were
filed on or before August 1, 2014, are subject to being forever
barred by order of the Bankruptcy Court. Many of the more than
90,000 pre-petition claims are likely among the approximately
180,000 claims filed in the GST Chapter 11 Case. Approximately
10,000 of the claims filed in the GST Chapter 11 Case allege
mesothelioma, many of the pre-petition mesothelioma claims likely
among those claims.

"Based on its preliminary analysis, GST believes that a
significant number of such claims were resolved and paid by GST
prior to the GST Petition Date, had been dismissed with prejudice
prior to the GST Petition Date or are time-barred under applicable
statutes of limitations. The Joint Plan will provide for a new
claims bar date by which proofs of claims for asbestos-related
diseases allegedly caused by Coltec must be filed with the
Bankruptcy Court or be subject to being forever barred by order of
the Bankruptcy Court.

                      Product Defenses

"We believe that the asbestos-containing products manufactured or
sold by GST could not have been a substantial contributing cause
of any asbestos-related disease. The asbestos in the products was
encapsulated, which means the asbestos fibers incorporated into
the products during the manufacturing process were sealed in
binders. The products were also nonfriable, which means they could
not be crumbled by hand pressure. The U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which began generally requiring warnings on
asbestos-containing products in 1972, has never required that a
warning be placed on products such as GST LLC's gaskets. Even
though no warning label was required, GST LLC included one on all
of its asbestos-containing products beginning in 1978. Further,
gaskets such as those previously manufactured and sold by GST LLC
are one of the few asbestos-containing products still permitted to
be manufactured under regulations of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Nevertheless, GST LLC discontinued all
manufacture and distribution of asbestos-containing products in
the U.S. during 2000 and worldwide in mid-2001.

                     Trials and Appeals

"GST LLC has a record of success in trials of asbestos cases,
especially before the bankruptcies of many of the historically
significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw asbestos,
asbestos insulation, refractory products or other dangerous
friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion lost jury
verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it has
received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority of
those appeals.

              Insurance Coverage Available to GST

"At December 31, 2016, we had $62.0 million of insurance coverage
we believe is available to cover current and future GST asbestos
claims payments and certain expense payments. GST has collected
insurance payments totaling $134.6 million since the GST Petition
Date, including $18 million in 2016. We consider the $62.0 million
of available insurance coverage remaining to be of high quality
because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-
based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade
(BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or
better. Of the $62.0 million, $25.9 million is allocated to claims
that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the GST
Chapter 11 Case and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $28.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
all of the $62.0 million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be
collected, although there can be no assurance that the insurance
companies will make the payments as and when due. The $62.0
million is in addition to the $18 million collected in 2016. Based
on those agreements and policies, some of which define specific
annual amounts to be paid and others of which limit the amount
that can be recovered in any one year, we anticipate that $38.0
million will become collectible at the conclusion of the GST
Chapter 11 Case and, assuming the insurers pay according to the
agreements and policies, that the following amounts should be
collected in the years set out regardless of when the case
concludes:

        2017 - $13 million
        2018 - $11 million

"GST LLC has received $8.6 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the $62.0 million of
anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other subsidiaries
in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore
could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees."

Enpro Industries Inc. -- http://www.enproindustries.com/-- is a
diversified manufacturer of proprietary engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Accrues $387MM for Asbestos Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------
Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd., GST LLC, The Anchor
Packing Company (collectively GST) revised estimate of its
ultimate asbestos expenditures to $387.0 million and has accrued
liability at December 31, 2016 at that amount, according to Enpro
Industries Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Enpro states: "Our recorded asbestos liability as of the GST
Petition Date was $472.1 million. We based that recorded liability
on an estimate of probable and estimable expenditures to resolve
asbestos personal injury claims under generally accepted
accounting principles, made with the assistance of Garrison and an
estimation expert, Bates White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The
estimate developed was an estimate of the most likely point in a
broad range of potential amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve
asbestos claims (by settlement in the majority of the cases except
those dismissed or tried) over the ten-year period following the
date of the estimate in the state court system, plus accrued but
unpaid legal fees. The estimate, which was not discounted to
present value, did not reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal
liability. GST LLC has continuously maintained that its products
could not have been a substantial contributing cause of any
asbestos disease. Instead, the liability estimate reflected GST
LLC's recognition that most claims would be resolved more
efficiently and at a significantly lower total cost through
settlements without any actual liability determination.
From the GST Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014,
neither we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual except as
necessary to reflect payments of accrued fees and the disposition
of cases on appeal. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that
has been resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability
has been determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization
agreed to by the debtor, its asbestos claimants and a legal
representative for its potential future claimants. GST did not
believe that there was a reliable process by which an estimate of
such a consensual resolution could be made and therefore believed
that there was no basis upon which it could revise the estimate
last updated prior to the GST Petition Date.

"Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating
GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125
million and GST's filing in May 2014 of its first amended proposed
plan of reorganization setting out its intention to fund a plan
with total consideration of $275 million, GST undertook to revise
its estimate of its ultimate expenditures to resolve all present
and future asbestos claims against it to be no less than the
amounts required under its amended proposed plan. Similarly, while
GST believes it to be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST
believed its ultimate expenditures to resolve all asbestos claims
against it could be no more than the total value of GST. As a
result, GST believed that its ultimate asbestos expenditures would
be somewhere in that range between those two values and therefore
revised its estimate to the low end of the range. Accordingly, at
June 30, 2014, GST revised its estimate of its ultimate
expenditures to resolve all present and future asbestos claims to
$280.5 million, the amount of expenditures to resolve all asbestos
claims under that amended plan.

"In light of the filing of the second amended proposed plan of
reorganization by GST on January 14, 2015, GST undertook to
further revise its estimate of ultimate costs to resolve all
asbestos claims against it. Under the second amended plan, not
less than $367.5 million would be required to fund the resolution
of all GST asbestos claims, $30 million of which would be funded
by Coltec. As a result, GST believed the low end of the range of
values that would be necessary for it to resolve all present and
future claims to be $337.5 million. Accordingly, GST revised its
estimate of its ultimate asbestos expenditures to $337.5 million
and had accrued its liability at December 31, 2015 at that amount
and Coltec had accrued a liability of $30 million at December 31,
2015 in connection with its contribution to be made pursuant to
the Parent Settlement included in the second amended plan. GST's
estimate of this $337.5 million amount did not include any amount
with respect to the contingent supplementary contributions to the
litigation fund contemplated by the second amended plan because
GST believed that initial contributions to the litigation fund
would likely be sufficient to fund the litigation and,
accordingly, that the low end of a range of reasonably possible
loss associated with these contingent supplementary contributions
would be $1.

"In light of the Consensual Settlement announced on March 17,
2016, GST further revised its estimate of the ultimate costs to
resolve all asbestos claims against it. Under the Joint Plan
proposed pursuant to the Consensual Settlement, $480 million will
be required to fund the resolution of all asbestos claims against
GST and OldCo, as the successor by merger to Coltec, $370.0
million of which will be funded by GST LLC and Garrison and $110
million of which will be funded by OldCo (an aggregate of $50
million of value upon the effective date of consummation of the
Joint Plan and $60 million one year after the effective date). In
addition, GST has estimated the amount necessary to resolve all
current and future Canadian asbestos claims alleging disease,
resulting in whole or in part from exposure to GST asbestos-
containing products, to be $17.0 million, the net present value of
the amount to be paid pursuant to the Canadian Settlement. As a
result, GST believes the low end of the range of values that will
be necessary for it to resolve its present and future asbestos
claims is $387.0 million. GST revised its estimate of its ultimate
asbestos expenditures to $387.0 million and has accrued its
liability at December 31, 2016 at that amount and OldCo has
accrued a liability of $110.0 million at December 31, 2016 in
connection with its contributions to be made pursuant to the Joint
Plan."

Enpro Industries Inc. -- http://www.enproindustries.com/-- is a
diversified manufacturer of proprietary engineered products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Global Power Equipment Group Inc. subsidiary is still facing
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits.  Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions.  The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time.  We also
believe the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a
bar against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy.  In any event, in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability.

"Moreover, during 2012, we secured insurance coverage that will
help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity
obligations of our former operating unit relating to these claims.
We intend to vigorously defend all currently active actions, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.  However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Zs0C6T


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CES Still Faces SiteTech Suit at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
CES Synergies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Cross Environmental Services,
Inc. ("CES"), continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
regarding the failure to timely remove asbestos-containing
materials, 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, "On or about March 16, 2016, SiteTech, Inc.,
filed suit against CES.  In this suit, SiteTech alleges negligence
by CES for failing to remove asbestos-containing materials in a
timely manner alleging damages in excess of US$75,000.  CES denies
any liability and has countersued for amounts due it on the
project.  The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/txE48b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to defend itself against personal
injury suits related to asbestos exposure, 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), a
subsidiary of Kaanapali Land, have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.
While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land,
there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against
D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material
adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been
forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly
or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali
Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is
named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land;
however, there can be no assurance in this regard."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to pursue discussions with
Fireman's Fund regarding insurance coverage on the asbestos
lawsuits that the Company still faces, 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, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C
Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those
policies for asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim,
Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to
pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever
reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the
policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land
is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Distribution Continues to Face PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, is
still facing proofs of claim filed by a San Francisco-based
personal injury law firm on behalf of around two thousand
claimants, 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, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v.  D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No.  04433669 filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco, Central Justice Center.  No other purported party
was served.

"In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.

"Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its
attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by
D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled
to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it
has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.

"D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.  D/C believed
that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to
vigorously defend.  In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled
to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of
amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered.

"In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations
while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement
and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006,
whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a
promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest
in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit.

"In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million.  Such settlement
amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the
secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.

"Kaanapali Land filed claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated
approximately US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and
unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.

"In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco
that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs
of claim on behalf of approximately two thousand claimants.  While
it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have
a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is
unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not
expected, however, that the Company will receive any material
additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. D/C Remains Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos claims filed in California against Kaanapali Land,
LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation, have been stayed
pending resolution of the unit's bankruptcy proceedings, 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, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.

"In their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift
the stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.

"The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as an
objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things,
insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the
D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No.
07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the
court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate."

"Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States appealed the
bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires
consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit
certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy
of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.

"Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court
failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to
liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims
remained subject to the stay.  The district court remanded the
case for further proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such
further proceedings on the lift stay will take place."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Suits at March 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
and claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 4, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We
are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without
payment.  If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that
compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our
products, the case is generally settled for an amount that
reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and
character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number
and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction
in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.  To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rkC5Nq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face Claims in Miss., La.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves
against lawsuits asserting asbestos-related claims in Mississippi
and Louisiana, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar
complaints were filed in Louisiana.  The plaintiffs, former
employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the
defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud
additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming
negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law.  The
plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, but the court appointed special master has ruled
that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued
for punitive damages.

"At December 31, 2016, 15 plaintiffs have claims pending in
Mississippi and eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana
in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to defend
these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as
to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad liability
insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will
cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.

"Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A copy of the Company's Form 8-K filing and its attachments are
available at https://is.gd/u1FaSR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Still Faces 305 PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
A Transocean Ltd. subsidiary remains a defendant in around 305
lawsuits at December 31, 2016 alleging bodily and personal injury
due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
6, 2017.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat
exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment
of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of December 31, 2016, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 305 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 329
plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  For many of these lawsuits, we have
not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs
to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries.

"The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and
proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and
(ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund.  The subsidiary has in excess
of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from
settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from
insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers
to respond to these claims.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

A copy of the Company's Form 8-K filing and its attachments are
available at https://is.gd/u1FaSR



                         *********


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  * * *