CAR_Public/170623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, June 23, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 125



                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Lead Counsel's Heart Problem Halts AndroGel Trial
AKORN INC: Faces "Alcarez" Securities Suit Over Sale to Fresenius
ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson's Bid to Certify Class Continued
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lavener" Suit Over FX-Price Fixing
BFT LP: AMP Automotive Files Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

BIG LOTS: Court Denies Protective Order in "Willis" Suit
BKB CONSTRUCTION: "Calderon" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
BLUE CROSS: Sued for Allegedly Denying Cancer Drug Coverage
BNC BANCORP: Responds to Shareholder Class Action
CABELA'S INC: Faces "Klein" Securities Suit Over Bass Pro Merger

CABELA'S INC: Faces "Solak" Class Action Over Bass Pro Sale
CAPES & SOKOL: Oct. 24 Final Settlement Hearing in "Rectenwald"
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gender Bias Class Action
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Hoffman Removed as Counsel in "Robinson" Suit
CHICAGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Campbell, et al Suit

CHINA AGRITECH: Kilpatrick Comments on 9th Circ. Ruling
COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces Federal Class Action Lawsuit
COLUMBUS, GA: Oct. 11 Hearing to Approve "Harrison" Settlement
CU BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger
DISH NETWORK: FTC Imposes $200MM Fine Over Robocalls

ECODESIGNZ LLC: "Cordoba" Alleges False Ad of "Bamboo Fabric"
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Among Companies Sued by AG Over Opioids
ESTATE LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garza" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Stinson Comments on 8th Circuit Ruling
FARMERS GROUP: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Violation

FORJAS TAURUS: Must Produce Documents in "Burrow" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Bellwether Ignition Defect Case Heads to Trial
GREEN TREE: Ohio Court Certifies Class in "Geary"
GREGORY TURZA: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Holtzman" Suit
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Faces "Bitton" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation

ING USA ANNUITY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Abbit" Class Suit
JAGGED PEAK: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
JAGUAR LAND: Faces "Baar" Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Practices
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bristo-Myers Ruling to Impact Talc Lawsuits
JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators and Riggers Subclasses Certified

LOVING ARMS: Faces "Long" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
MASSAGE ENVY: Appeals "McKinney-Drobnis" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
MONTGOMERY, GA: Hamilton Drops Class Action Over Taxes
KABBAGE INC: Henry's Bid to Dismiss "Custom" Suit Partly Granted
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Order in "Kurtz" Suit to 2nd Circuit

KPMG: Settles Asian Job Applicants Discrimination Claims
KRAFT FOODS: Morales Asks Recertification of Suit; Submits Brief
MAZOR ROBOTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Placeholder Motion Filed in "Janetos" Suit
MORTON SALT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roberts" Suit Says

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Shon Dawkins' Death
NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Deceptive Price Advertisement
NIKITA LEVY: Settlement Checks Issued by Batches
ON HALF SHELL: "Grennnan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PACCAR INC: Class Action Claims Filed Against DAF

PANERA BREAD: Faces "Berg" Securities Lawsuit Over JAB Merger
PANERA BREAD: Faces "Phillips" Lawsuit Over JAB Holdings Merger
PENSKE LOGISTICS: $500K Settlement in "Myers" Gets Final Approval
PENSKE LOGISTICS: $750K Settlement in "Dilts" Gets Final Approval
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Ct. OKs "Brown" Suit Deal; Final Hrng Oct. 5

PHILLIPS CONCRETE: Faces "Marin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chickens Suit Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motion to Dismiss "Hogan" Suit Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Class Action in Oklahoma Pending
PRECOR INC: Bid to Review "Mednick" Class Certification Denied

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Class Certification in "Belfiore" Suit
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Seeks Review of Ruling in AA Suncoast Suit
ROCHE HOLDING: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
RUBIANO INC: Faces "Mays" Lawsuit Over Alleged Misclassification
SAHOTA FAMILY: Class Action Suit Stalled Over Venue Dispute

SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Narrows Certified Class in "Estorga" Suit
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: First Circuit Appeal Still Pending
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Kader" Class Suit Pending
SENTINEL OFFENDER: July 5 Hearing on "Luse" Case Settlement
SETERUS INC: Ciolino Moves for Certification of Classes Under HPA

SOUTHEAST LINEN: Faces "Hanlon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: "Quiruz" FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Ayeni and Hartsock Suits
STATE STREET: Suits over Invoicing Practices Pending
STATION CASINOS: Faces "Coyne" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Action Lawuit Ongoing
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Class Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Mutual Funds Class Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement Reached in "Thurmond" Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Case Now Final

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Flack" Securities Lawsuit
TAKATA CORP: Bankruptcy Filing to Impact Faulty Air Bag Victims
THERANOS INC: Judge Allows Blood Test Fraud Claims to Proceed
TONER DOCTOR: Plantation Spinal Sues Over TCPA Violation
TOWNSEND TREE: Faces "Hart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimants Ask Court to Unravel $25MM Settlement
TT OF PINE RIDGE: Mahoney Seeks Prelim. OK of $5.7MM Settlement
UNIT CORPORATION: Class Certification Pending in Panola Case
UNITED STATES: $13.9MM Settlement in "Furlong" Has Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Seeks Fed. Cir. Review of Ruling in "Memmer" Suit

UNITED STATES: Trump Suffers Another Defeat in Travel Ban Case
UNITED STATES: Trump Tweets Cited in Travel Ban Case Arguments
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Certification Sought in TRAC Program Suit
WASHINGTON: ACLU Sues Over Failure to Teach Special Ed Students
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: "Davis" Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violation

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Faces "Lejeaun" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES: Appeals Orders in "Tang" Suit to 2nd Cir.
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Class Certification Sought in "Shaw" Suit
WORTH COUNTY, GA: Students Speak Out About Humiliating Pat-down
ZOME INC: Faces Class Action Over Short Shelf Lives Gift Cards

* Ottawa Pre-Empts 'Gold Rush' of Anti-Spam Lawsuits
* Seyfarth Comments on 3rd Party Litigation Funding


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blouin" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Court Dismisses "Fields" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Basis to Seal Docs in "Warren", Court Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex Wins Summary Judgment in "Dullinger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Order on Jurisdiction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dockyard Worker Heirs Gets EUR9,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 42 North Ayrshire Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Slams BASF's Discovery Demand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer to Pay MSA Extra $2MM in Fees

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Exposed to Asbestos Blows Whistle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employee's Wife May Sue for Her Own Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Asbestos Statute Puts Onus on Owners
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Polaris Recalls 13,000 Bikes with Asbestos Parts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure at Airport Affects 120 Workers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Liable to Pre-1972 GM Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $26.6MM Libby Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 111 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had $506MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 55 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.3MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 709 Injury Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Pending PI Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Still Defends 98 PI Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $11.5MM Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $295.5MM Loss Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 228 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,786 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $166.3MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. E-Source Remains Pending in Texas

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faced 1,104 New Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 98 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Faces 56,300 Claims at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Suits at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends RI Litigation



                            *********



ABBVIE INC: Lead Counsel's Heart Problem Halts AndroGel Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first bellwether trial over a prescription medication
used to treat low testosterone has ended in a mistrial after lead
plaintiffs' attorney Christopher Seeger suffered from heart
problems.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of
Illinois granted an oral motion made by the plaintiffs for a
mistrial, according to a minute order on June 12.  He scheduled a
new trial in the case to begin Sept. 18.

Mr. Seeger, founding partner of Seeger Weiss in New York, is a
prominent member of the plaintiffs' bar and is best known for his
lead role in the concussion litigation against the National
Football League.  He was serving as lead counsel in a trial that
began June 5 in a case brought by Jeffrey Konrad against AbbVie
Inc., which makes AndroGel, a topical gel used to boost
testosterone levels in men.

In an email, Mr. Seeger said he would be "100 percent fine."
"I had an arrhythmia that is being treated," he wrote.  "We would
have been fine with a continuance but the court's schedule could
not accommodate that so the case mistried [sic]."

The trial was the first of nearly 6,000 lawsuits that have been
filed over AndroGel and testosterone replacement therapies made by
several other companies including Eli Lilly and Co.  The lawsuits,
coordinated in multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, contend that the drugs
cause heart attacks, strokes and blood clots.
Mr. Seeger is serving in the multidistrict litigation as co-lead
counsel with Trent Miracle -- tmiracle@simmonsfirm.com -- a
shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Illinois, and Ronald
Johnson -- rjohnson@pschachter.com -- of Schachter, Hendy &
Johnson in Wright, Kentucky.

AbbVie defense counsel Michelle Yeary of Dechert declined to
comment about the mistrial.

The trial was the first of six against AbbVie scheduled for this
year.  Mr. Konrad, 56, alleged he suffered a heart attack in 2010
after taking AndroGel for about two months.  He also alleged that
AbbVie, in an effort to boost sales, made false statements in
advertising and marketing materials about how many men actually
suffered from low testosterone -- rather than just the symptoms of
old age.

A second bellwether trial is scheduled for next month.  That
trial, and a third trial, also allege AndroGel caused heart
attacks or strokes, while the latter three trials against AbbVie
claim the drug caused blood clots.


AKORN INC: Faces "Alcarez" Securities Suit Over Sale to Fresenius
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ALCAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC., KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ,
ADRIENNE L. GRAVES, RONALD M. JOHNSON, JOHN N. KAPOOR, STEVEN J.
MEYER, TERRY A. RAPPUHN, BRIAN TAMBI, and ALAN WEINSTEIN
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., June 7,
2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act by filing a preliminary proxy statement regarding the
sale of the Company to Fresenius Kabi AG, that is materially
deficient and misleading.

The Proposed Transaction has a total transaction value of
approximately $4.3 billion and is expected to close by early 2018.

The complaint says the Proxy is materially deficient and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information regarding the Company's financial projections, GAAP
reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures contained in the
Company's projections, which were prepared by Company management
and relied upon by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the Company's
financial advisor, the financial analysis performed by J.P. Morgan
to support its opinion on the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.

Akorn Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter consumer and animal health
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
     O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
     3500 North Hullen Street
     Metairie, LA 70002
     Phone: (504) 456-8677
     Fax: (504) 456-8653
     E-mail: ejo@OBellLawFirm.com

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 337-1567
     Email: denright@zlk.com
            etripodi@zlk.com


ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson's Bid to Certify Class Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 13, 2017, in the case styled
Alonzo Patterson v. Allied Collection Services, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-04224 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue motion is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and
      continued to the next status hearing; and

   -- the motion presentment date of June 14, 2017, is stricken.
      Parties need not appear.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t80Tqgh3


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Lavener" Suit Over FX-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lavender, Victor Hernandez, FX Primus Ltd., Charles G.
Hitchcock III, and Tina Porter, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation; Bank Of
America, N.A.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; The
Bank Of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd.; Barclays Bank PLC; Barclays
Capital Inc.; BNP Paribas Group; BNP Paribas North America, Inc.;
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; BNP Paribas Prime Brokerage, Inc.;
Citigroup Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Citicorp; Citigroup Global Markets
Inc.; Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; Deutsche Bank AG; Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC
Holdings PLC; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.;
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; JPMorgan Chase &
Co.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley &
Co., LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC; RBC Capital
Markets LLC; Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC; RBS Securities
Inc.; Societe Generale S.A.; Standard Chartered Bank; UBS AG; UBS
Group AG; and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04392
(S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2017), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy among horizontal
competitors to fix the prices of foreign currencies ("FX") and
foreign currency instruments.

The Defendants operate financial services companies throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
      Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: jripley@bm.net
              mdavidoff@bm.net
              mdellangelo@bm.net

         - and -
      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0142
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE LLP
      201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4610
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (504) 523-2434
      Facsimile: (504) 523-2464
      E-mail: jpeiffer@prwlegal.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Telephone: (855) 467-0451
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
              smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


BFT LP: AMP Automotive Files Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
AMP AUTOMOTIVE, LLC V. B F T, LP d/b/a GREAT AMERICAN BUSINESS
PRODUCTS, Case No. 2:17-cv-05667 (E.D. La., June 8, 2017), seeks
to recover on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
damages, and to enjoin alleged massive junk faxing by defendant in
direct violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendant's violations include, but are not limited to, the
fifteen unsolicited fax advertisements to Plaintiff's facsimile
telephone number.

Defendant is in the business of property management and automobile
marketing supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George B. Recile, Esq.
     Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
     Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
     Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
     Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
     CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM &
     HAYES, L.L.P.
     One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Metairie, LA 70001
     Phone: (504) 833-5600
     Fax: (504) 613-4528


BIG LOTS: Court Denies Protective Order in "Willis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN WILLIS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG LOTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-604 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied
the Defendants' motion for a protective order precluding the
deposition of David J. Campisi.

This is a securities class action in which the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants unlawfully inflated the value of Big Lots
stock during the period from March 2, 2012 to Aug. 23, 2012 by
concealing the company's true financial condition.  They seek to
depose Mr. Campisi, Big Lots' current President and CEO who joined
the company on May 3, 2013, and became a Director on May 30, 2013.
The Plaintiffs have agreed to limit the deposition to three hours
at a location and time of Mr. Campisi's choosing, and seek three
general categories of information.

The first category of information Plaintiffs seek from Mr. Campisi
concerns the firing or departure of individual Defendants and
other key Big Lots executives.  The second category of information
concerns Mr. Campisi's knowledge of Big Lots' operations during or
immediately following the class period. The third category of
information concerns what the Plaintiffs refer to as the Special
Committee and Defendants refer to as the Demand Committee formed
in March 2013, which they contend investigated many of the same
facts underlying this litigation.

On May 15, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for a protective
order precluding Mr. Campisi's deposition.  They argue that Mr.
Campisi lacks personal knowledge of any relevant facts, the
proposed deposition topics are irrelevant and testimony on them
would be unreasonably duplicative, and the Plaintiffs request to
depose Mr. Campisi for the purpose of harassment.  The Defendants'
arguments fail.

The Court, in its discretion, finds that the Defendants fail to
make a specific and persuasive showing of good cause warranting
the rare limitation on liberal discovery.  Consequently, it denied
the Defendants' motion for a protective order precluding Mr.
Campisi's deposition.

Any party may, within 14 days after the Order is filed, file and
serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a
District Judge.  The motion must specifically designate the order
or part in question and the basis for any objection.  Responses to
objections are due 14 days after objections are filed and replies
by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.  The
District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, will set aside
any part of the Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.

The Order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing
of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or
District Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/cMgSpf from Leagle.com.

Alan Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Austin P. Brane --
ABrane@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice.

Alan Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Cochran --
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Brian K. Murphy -- murphy@mmmb.com -- David W. Mitchell --
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin A. Lavelle -- klavelle@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas F. Olts --
lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & Joseph F. Murray -- murray@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul +
Basil LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian E. Cochran, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph F. Murray, Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP,
Austin P. Brane, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin A. Lavelle, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice &
Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Joseph F. Murray, Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP.

Big Lots, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz --
jjkulewicz@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William
Darrell Kloss, Jr. -- wdklossjr@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick -- cfitzpatrick@cravath.com --
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson
-- matthew.hendrickson@skadden.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin -- mpaskin@cravath.com -- Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron --
tcameron@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Steven S. Fishman, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William Darrell Kloss, Jr., Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Joe R. Cooper, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William Darrell Kloss, Jr., Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Charles W. Haubiel II, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Kulewicz, Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, William Darrell Kloss, Jr.,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman, Cravath, Swaine
& Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath, Swaine
& Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, LLP, pro hac vice.

Timothy A. Johnson, Defendant, represented by William Darrell
Kloss, Jr., Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Caitlin N. Fitzpatrick,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Herman,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, John Joseph Kulewicz,
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Matthew P. Hendrickson, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Paskin, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, LLP, pro hac vice.


BKB CONSTRUCTION: "Calderon" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand to state court the case captioned ANTONIO
CALDERON, Plaintiff, v. BKB CONSTRUCTION, LP, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-01255-DMR (N.D. Cal.), and denied his motion to strike as
moot.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant.  He filed
this class action in Alameda County Superior Court on Jan. 24,
2017, alleging violations of various provisions of the California
Labor Code.  He seeks back wages, unpaid overtime, and statutory
penalties on behalf of a putative class of the Defendant's current
and former non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff asserts eight claims for relief: (i) failure to pay
overtime in violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and
1198; (ii) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor
Code sections 226.7 and 512(a); (iii) failure to provide rest
periods in violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (iv) failure to
pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197,
and 1197.1; (v) failure to pay wages at termination in violation
of Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (vi) failure to issue accurate
and itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section
226(a); (vii) failure to reimburse for business-related expenses
and costs in violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; and
(viii) violation of California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 et seq.

The Defendant timely removed the complaint.  It alleges that
removal is proper because diversity jurisdiction exists over the
Plaintiff's individual claims, and CAFA jurisdiction exists over
the class claims.

In support of removal, the Defendant submitted the Declaration of
Stuart English, its Senior Estimator who oversees and manages its
employment issues in California.  English makes certain assertions
about the putative class and the Plaintiff's individual claims.
Generally speaking, English states that there are approximately
400 putative class members, and that each earned between $10 and
$15 per hour.  He also purports to calculate the value of the
Plaintiff's individual claims.  According to him, the Plaintiff's
damages total $77,202 based on his calculations of the Plaintiff's
waiting time penalties, meal and rest period premiums, overtime
and minimum wage damages and penalties, and paystub violation
penalties.  English offers no damages calculations for the class
claims.

The Plaintiff now moves for remand, arguing that the Defendant has
failed to establish that his individual claims exceed the $75,000
minimum for diversity jurisdiction, or that the class claims
exceed the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum under CAFA.

Magistrate Judge Ryu finds that the Defendant has failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-
controversy for the Plaintiff's class claims exceed the $5 million
jurisdictional minimum under CAFA.  Therefore, the Magistrate
Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and denied the
Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Defendant's Answer as
moot.  The case is remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/PbTDkY from Leagle.com.

Antonio Calderon, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Park.

Antonio Calderon, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation & Shunt
Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law
Corporation.

BKB Construction, LP, Defendant, represented by James Russell
Wakefield -- jwakefield@cwlawyers.com -- Cummins and White LLP &
Erick Joseph Becker Cummins & White, LLP.


BLUE CROSS: Sued for Allegedly Denying Cancer Drug Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Robin Chusid, 55, fought cancer for about a year.  She seemed to
have won, and danced at her son's wedding one week after her last
chemotherapy treatment in October.

But Chusid said she's always afraid.  Ovarian cancer recurs in 70
percent of women in remission, according to data from the
nonprofit Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance.  The odds, she
said, seem stacked against her.

Now the wife of Coral Springs litigator Mitchel Chusid is gearing
for another fight, this time with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Florida Inc. for denying coverage of a $15,600-per-month drug. Her
husband's 40-page class action lawsuit filed June 13 in Broward
Circuit Court includes medical records and asks the court for two
things: a finding that the insurance company violated Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and a declaration forcing
Blue Cross to cover a drug called Zejula, which the Food and Drug
Administration approved in March to treat relapsed ovarian cancer
patients and those in remission.

"For Blue Cross to say they're not paying for it because it's not
in their formulary, they're playing god," Mitchel Chusid said.
"They have control over medication that could save people's lives,
and they're saying, 'We're not paying for it.'"

No attorney had entered an appearance for Florida Blue Cross by
press time, and assistant general counsel Jeremy Ches did not
respond to a request for comment by deadline.

But insurance sources say it can take up to six months from the
date of FDA approval for companies to review a drug's efficacy and
determine how to cover it before adding it to their policies.
"Florida Blue takes any member complaint very seriously and we are
looking into the situation," spokesman Doug Bartel said.

"While we do not comment on matters involving a specific customer,
the health and well-being of all our members is of utmost
concern."

But the Chusids believe otherwise.

"I believe Blue Cross has taken this position solely for monetary
reasons," Mitchel Chusid said.

"As we speak I know of four other insurance companies--Medicare,
Aetna, United Healthcare and Preferred Partners--that have
approved Zejula and are paying at least in part for it."

Coral Springs-based Ritter Chusid pays more than $15,000 per month
in premiums for employer-based insurance plans that cost $580 or
about $1,700 monthly for individual and family coverage,
respectively, Mitchel Chusid said.

The attorney said Florida Blue denied a request from his wife's
physician and also turned down a written appeal.  He said he spent
nearly three weeks making calls to the insurer and its general
counsel before filing suit over the $15,600-per-month, or about
$173-per-pill, drug by Massachusetts-based manufacturer Tesaro
Inc.

Zejula is a poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor.  It slows tumor
growth by blocking an enzyme that allows cancerous cells to repair
themselves, according to the FDA.

"I felt I was saved," Robin Chusid said.  "I thought, 'This is
going to save my life.' The FDA approved it.  We thought it would
be as simple as sending it through Blue Cross Blue Shield."


BNC BANCORP: Responds to Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Breaking News and Headlines reports that BNC Bancorp has responded
quickly, from a financial disclosure perspective, to a shareholder
class-action lawsuit aimed at halting its sale to a Tennessee
bank.

The lawsuit filed May 25 could work to delay the bank's
shareholder vote set for June 12. The bank's response was filed on
June 9 in the form of an amended proxy statement. The $1.9 billion
all-stock deal, announced Jan. 23, would allow Pinnacle National
Financial Partners, based in Nashville, Tenn., to move closer to
becoming a top-50 bank with nearly $19 billion in total assets
once it acquires BNC's $7.4 billion. Pinnacle also has a special
shareholder meeting set for June 12. The banks expect to close the
transaction in late June or early July. The law firm of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston filed the lawsuit on behalf of Andrew Giles. He
is suing the High Point bank and its board of directors. The
plaintiff has not filed a response to the BNC amended proxy
disclosure. The lawsuit claims the current offer undervalues BNC
and deprives shareholders of additional benefits for selling. The
lawsuit wants BNC held liable for retroactive damages if the sale
is approved before the projections are disclosed.

BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ:BNCN), a Financial sector firm, traded 639908
shares in last trading session with closing price of $34.65 per
share. Company return on investment (ROI) is 17.90%. Stock value
has moved between $21.52 - 37.26 in last one year. Analyst's mean
recommendation is 2.80. BNCN EPS growth this year is 12.10%.

On last trading day, Schlumberger Limited (NYSE:SLB) shares closed
at $68.31 per share. SLB market capitalization is 94.92B with beta
of 1.03.  Analyst's mean recommendation is 2.00. Its weekly
performance is -2.11% while year to date (YTD) performance is -
18.63%.

Nucor Corporation (NYSE:NUE) declared the regular quarterly cash
dividend of $0.3775 per share on Nucor's common stock. This cash
dividend is payable on August 11, 2017 to stockholders of record
on June 30, 2017, and is Nucor's 177th consecutive quarterly cash
dividend. Nucor and its affiliates are manufacturers of steel
products, with operating facilities primarily in the U.S. and
Canada. Products produced include: carbon and alloy steel -- in
bars, beams, sheet and plate; hollow structural section tubing;
electrical conduit; steel piling; steel joists and joist girders;
steel deck; fabricated concrete reinforcing steel; cold finished
steel; steel fasteners; metal building systems; steel grating; and
wire and wire mesh.

In last session Nucor Corporation (NYSE:NUE) traded 2.93 Million
shares and was closed at $59.14. Analyst's mean recommendation is
2.10. Company is -13.03% away from its 52 week high and is moving
31.98% ahead of its 52 week low. NUE Gross Margin is 14.40%. Nucor
Corporation (NYSE:NUE) quarterly performance is -2.31% while its
price to sale ratio is 1.10.

ACI Worldwide, Inc. (NASDAQ:ACIW), a Technology sector firm,
traded 354973 shares on last trading day with closing price of
$23.27 per share. Company gross margin stands at 57.00% whereas
its return on investment (ROI) is 11.00%. Stock value has moved
between $15.11 - 23.99 in last one year. Analyst's mean
recommendation is 2.20. ACIW EPS growth this year is 51.70%. [GN]



CABELA'S INC: Faces "Klein" Securities Suit Over Bass Pro Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM KLEIN, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CABELA'S INCORPORATED, JAMES W. CABELA,
THEODORE M. ARMSTRONG, MICHAEL R. MCCARTHY, JOHN H. EDMONDSON,
BETH M. PRITCHARD, THOMAS L. MILLNER, JAMES F. WRIGHT, PETER S.
SWINBURN, DENNIS HIGHBY, and DONNA M. MILROD, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00698-UNA (D. Del., June 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by filing a
materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement in connection with the proposed merger between Cabela's
and Bass Pro Group, LLC.

The transaction value is originally approximately $5.5 billion.
On April 17, 2017, Cabela's and Bass Pro amended the Original
Merger Agreement in which the Original Merger Consideration was
lowered to $61.50 per share of Cabela's, representing a
transaction value of $5 billion.

The complaint says the Merger Consideration and the process by
which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Merger are
fundamentally unfair to Cabela's public shareholders in view of
the Company's recent financial success and prospects for future
growth.  In particular, the Proxy fails to disclose: (1) certain
material projections for Cabela's, including a reconciliation of
the non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles)
projections to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and the
line items used to calculate the non-GAAP measures, and (2) a fair
summary of the financial analyses performed by Guggenheim.

Cabela's Inc. is a retailer of hunting, fishing, camping, and
outdoor sports products and apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


CABELA'S INC: Faces "Solak" Class Action Over Bass Pro Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that a
shareholder in Cabela's Inc. has filed a new class action
complaint over the outdoor retailer's $5 billion sale to rival
Bass Pro Shop, accusing the Cabela's board of failing to make
important disclosures regarding the deal.

The latest challenge joins three others objecting to the proposed
merger of giant outdoor-goods retail chains.

The lawsuits all target a June 5 proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which the shareholders
called "incomplete and materially misleading" to shareholders, who
are scheduled to vote on the deal next month.  The proposed
acquisition, announced in April, reduced the deal price by
$500,000 from a transaction first announced last October.

In the most recent complaint, filed on June 15 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, Cabela's shareholder
John Solak, called the pending transaction a "reactionary
response" to pressure from Elliott Management Corp., an activist
investor that had acquired 11 percent of Cabela's stock and had
pushed. He also called for more information about the company's
financials to be released ahead of the July 11 vote.

Particularly, Mr. Solak said the proxy failed to disclose key
information regarding the background to the transaction, including
the identity of "various sources" who may have shared Bass Pro
Shops' bidding posture with other potential buyers, as well as
alleged conflicts by Cabela's financial adviser, Guggenheim
Securities.

Other material omissions, Mr. Solak said, included data regarding
management's accounting methods and inputs that made up the basis
of Guggenheim's valuation of the company.

"Defendants, separately and together, in connection with the
proposed transaction are knowingly or recklessly violating their
fiduciary duties, including their duties of loyalty and due care
owed to plaintiff and other public stockholders of Cabela's," the
complaint read.

Cabela's initially announced its deal with Bass Pro last October.
However, the deal was later thrown into jeopardy when the Capital
One National Association said it would likely be unable to get
regulators to sign off on its planned acquisition of Cabela's
credit card portfolio and banking assets, leaving Bass Pro and
Cabela's searching for alternative buyers.

In April, Cabela's announced that Capital One would go ahead with
its purchase of Cabela's credit card program, and Synovus, a small
regional lender, would acquire the bank's $1.2 billion in
deposits.  As a part of the agreement, Synovus would receive $75
million for helping to save the deal.

The revised arrangement, however, dropped the overall deal price
from $5.5 billion to $5 billion in a price cut that was absorbed
mostly by stockholders.  According to the complaint, Cabela's per-
share price dropped by $4 to $61.50, representing a $275 loss in
value for investors.

"In other words, despite not being at fault, the board volunteered
the stockholders to take the brunt of [Capital One's] failures--
all to appease Elliott," Mr. Solak said.

Michael Van Gorder, local counsel for Mr. Solak, declined on
June 15 to comment on the case.  Mr. Gorder, a partner with Faruqi
& Faruqi, is also representing Christopher A. Brown and Adam
Klein, who each filed separate shareholder class action suits over
the planned acquisition earlier this month.

A fourth plaintiff, Bernard Garcarz, is represented by Brian D.
Long of Rigrodsky & Long.  Mr. Long did not respond to a call on
June 15 seeking comment on the case.

The suits all name Cabela's, its founder and the company's board
members.  The plaintiffs are seeking to delay the July 11 vote
until they can access the additional materials.


CAPES & SOKOL: Oct. 24 Final Settlement Hearing in "Rectenwald"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL RECTENWALD and MIRANDA RECTENWALD,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CAPES, SOKOL, GOODMAN & SARACHAN, P.C., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00676-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Ronnie L. White entered an order preliminarily certifying a class
for settlement purposes only:

   "all individuals in the state of Missouri to whom Defendant
   sent a letter based on the Template in connection with the
   collection of a consumer debt on or after May 13, 2015 through
   the date of this order".

According the Court, "The proposed settlement appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will be
held on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom
10-South after Notice to the Class Members, to confirm that the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to
determine whether a Final Order and Judgment should be entered in
this case."

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


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gender Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, The Am Law Daily, reports that nearly two months
after voting to expel a former partner who is leading a $100
million gender bias suit against Chadbourne & Parke, the firm
failed on June 14 to escape a proposed class action alleging it's
run by an " all-male dictatorship."

U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken in Manhattan shot down
Chadbourne's motions for summary judgment and to dismiss class and
collective action claims in a suit led by former partner, Kerrie
Campbell, and two other former Chadbourne partners --
Mary Yelenick, who remains at the firm in an of counsel role, and
former Kiev, Ukraine, office leader Jaroslawa Zelinsky Johnson.

The decision comes on the heels of new filings lodged late on June
13 in a similar but separate suit in Washington, D.C., federal
court against Proskauer Rose.  That firm filed pleadings late on
June 13 seeking dismissal of an unnamed woman partner's gender
bias claims and a $50 million damages claim.

For Chadbourne, the sex bias suit has coincided with the firm's
preparation for a combination with global legal giant Norton Rose
Fulbright.  The deal, announced in February, would create a firm
with roughly 4,000 U.S. lawyers globally and revenues close to $2
billion.  On June 14, The American Lawyer affiliate Legal Week
reported that the proposed union may be delayed as the two firms
work through client conflicts.

Judge Oetken's ruling in the Chadbourne case considered several
motions -- summary judgment and dismissal bids on Chadbourne's
part, as well as a motion from Campbell to dismiss counterclaims
against her and a plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification under the federal Equal Pay Act.  At the center of
those motions, the judge wrote, is the question of "whether
plaintiffs are 'employees' under the relevant federal statutes and
therefore protected within their ambit."

Concluding that it's too early to answer that question, Judge
Oetken denied the competing motions and ordered "limited"
discovery to determine if the three former Chadbourne partners
deserve protection under employment laws, or if their former
status as partial owners of the firm disqualifies them from
bringing the suit. The judge said he would allow the two sides to
renew most of their motions after the discovery period.

A Chadbourne representative said in a statement on June 14 that
the firm believes the case should have been tossed out before
discovery, but remains "confident that after such discovery the
court will find that the plaintiffs are not employees under the
law, and that their claims should be dismissed."

The lead lawyer for the woman partners, David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler Sharp, said in a
statement that the decision shows that law firms may be liable
under employment laws for their treatment of partners.

"Discovery will establish that law firm partners are entitled to
the full protections of this country's laws against discrimination
and retaliation," he said.

Judge Oetken's decision came in one of a trio of pending gender
bias suits against large law firms -- Chadbourne, Proskauer Rose
and Sedgwick -- all brought on behalf of current or former female
partners represented by Sanford and others at his firm.  In both
the Chadbourne and Proskauer cases, Sanford is pitted against a
defense team led by Proskauer partners Kathleen McKenna ---
kmckenna@proskauer.com -- and Evandro Gigante --
egigante@proskauer.com --(Seyfarth Shaw is defending Sedgwick.)

In the Proskauer case, McKenna and others filed papers in
Washington, D.C., federal court late on June 13.  Seeking the
dismissal of a $50 million discrimination suit against the firm,
Proskauer argued that the unnamed woman partner at Proskauer who
brought the claims, referred to as Jane Doe, has been paid
"enormous sums" relative to her contributions to the firm.

The motion to dismiss comes after a May 12 complaint alleging that
Proskauer paid the woman partner millions of dollars less than
male counterparts, despite her "standout performance."

Proskauer argued, however, that the Jane Doe suit is an improper
attempt to shoehorn claims from an equity partner into federal and
state anti-discrimination laws meant to protect employees who hold
no ownership stake in a business.  Proskauer also maintains that
the suit boils down to a complaint from a disgruntled, but already
highly paid, partner who wishes the firm had a different pay
structure.

"This case is not about gender, nor is it about the relationship
between an employer and an employee.  It is instead about a single
business owner's discontent that her substantial allocation of
firm profits fell short of her ambitions," Proskauer wrote in a
brief.

Responding to the dismissal bid, Sanford Heisler senior litigation
counsel Alexandra Harwin said in a statement on
June 14 that Proskauer's argument misses the mark.  The separate
ruling in the Chadbourne case, she added, "makes clear that law
firms aren't insulated from liability simply because their
employees bear the title of 'partner' or have signed a
'partnership agreement.'"

Sanford Heisler has so far declined to name its client in the
Proskauer suit, and on May 17 it secured a court ruling that
allowed it to proceed for now with an anonymous plaintiff. Details
in the complaint -- including that the unnamed partner holds
practice leadership positions and is based in D.C. -- match the
professional biography of Connie Bertram, a labor and employment
partner who heads Proskauer's government contractor compliance
program and co-heads its whistleblower and retaliation group.

Ms. Bertram joined the firm in 2013 from Cooley, and is one of
only two woman partners in Proskauer's D.C. office.  The other is
securities and white-collar defense lawyer Ann Ashton, who came to
Proskauer in 2012 around the time her former firm, Dewey &
LeBoeuf, went bankrupt. Proskauer's motion to dismiss describes
the Jane Doe plaintiff as someone who joined the firm four years
ago.

In addition to refuting gender discrimination claims, Proskauer's
court filings on June 13 shed light on the firm's approach to
determining pay for partners.  In a declaration, firm chairman
Joseph Leccese said partner pay at Proskauer differs from many
other firms in Big Law.

Instead of "points" or "shares" that translate to a certain
percentage of the firm's profits, Proskauer's executive committee
reviews a host of quantitative and qualitative factors that seek
to measure short-term and long-term contributions to the firm,
according to Mr. Leccese.  The firm also doesn't base its partner
pay on a single year's performance.

The approach, Mr. Leccese said, is "an effort to allocate the
firm's profits in a way that fairly rewards each partner's overall
contribution to the firm's success and incentivizes firm-minded
behavior."


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Hoffman Removed as Counsel in "Robinson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHAON ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEFS'
WAREHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW) (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion
for reconsideration for its motion for sanctions.

Plaintiffs Shaon Robinson and Sean Clark assert individual and
class action claims against the Defendant alleging wage and hour
violations, as well as various discrimination claims.  The
proposed class consists of all persons employed by the Defendant
in the State of California as a Driver, Driver Trainer, or
Dispatcher at any time on or after Oct. 26, 2011.  The Plaintiffs
have three attorneys of record: Michael Hoffman, Leonard Emma, and
Stephen Noel Ilg.

On Feb. 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion for sanctions
against Mr. Hoffman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(d)(2), 28 U.S.C. Section 1927, and the Court's inherent
authority for his conduct at the Jan. 12, 2017 deposition of
Plaintiff Robinson.

On March 16, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant's
motion for sanctions.

On March 21, 2017, the Court sanctioned the Plaintiffs' counsel
Michael Hoffman for gross professional misconduct during the Jan.
12, 2017 deposition of Plaintiff Shaon Robinson.  Specifically,
monetary sanctions were imposed against Mr. Hoffman personally, he
was referred to the Northern District's Standing Committee on
Professional Conduct, and Judge Westmore ordered that all
depositions taken or defended by Mr. Hoffman must occur at the
Oakland Courthouse to permit court security officers and/or
marshals to be present.

On April 4, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration limited to the Court's decision to
permit Mr. Hoffman to take and defend depositions, which was
granted on April 17, 2017.

On April 21, 2017, the Defendant filed the motion for
reconsideration.  The Defendant seeks to introduce new or newly
discovered evidence: (i) threatening voicemail left for Ms. Beilke
on March 24, 2017; (ii) evidence of Mr. Hoffman's prior conduct;
and (iii) evidence that Messrs. Emma and Ilg are competent to take
and defend depositions in this matter.

On May 5, 2017, Mr. Hoffman filed his opposition.  On May 12,
2017, the Defendant filed its reply.

On June 1, 2017, the Court held a hearing, and after careful
consideration of the parties' arguments, and moving papers, the
Court granted the Defendant's motion for reconsideration, and Mr.
Hoffman is precluded from taking, defending, or otherwise being
present at any depositions in this lawsuit.

Furthermore, the Court awarded $9,487.50 in sanctions against Mr.
Hoffman personally, to be paid within 14 days of the order.
Additionally, Mr. Hoffman is referred to the State Bar of
California's Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/aFouj7 from Leagle.com.

Shaon Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Hoffman,
Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC.

Shaon Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard Thomas Emma,
Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC & Stephen Noel Ilg, Hoffman
Employment Lawyers.

The Chefs' Warehouse, Defendant, represented by Raymond A. Cardozo
-- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Aaron Mitchell
Rutschman -- arutschman@constangy.com -- Julia Yenha Trankiem --
jtrankiem@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Michele Jane Beilke --
mbeilke@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, Sonya Devorah Goodwin --
sgoodwin@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Zaher Lopez --
zlopez@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Ian Andrew Wright --
iwright@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

Michael Hoffman, Miscellaneous, represented by Frank A. Cialone --
fcialone@sflaw.com -- Shartsis Friese LLP & Kajsa McLean Minor,
Shartis Friese LLLP.


CHICAGO: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Campbell, et al Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned IMMANUEL CAMPBELL et al. the Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify:

   -- a class of:

      "all persons who, since June 14, 2015, have been or will in
      the future be subject to the use of force by the Chicago
      Police Department";

   -- a subclass of:

      "all Black and Latino members of the class".

The Plaintiffs' suit seeks injunctive relief under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Illinois Civil Rights Act.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police
Department (CPD) subject people within its jurisdiction, in
particular Black and Latino individuals, to excessive and often
brutal force. This pervasive pattern involving the
unconstitutional discriminatory and excessive use of force is
directly caused by and allowed to continue by a failed system of
training, supervision and accountability that enables a code of
silence that insulates and perpetuates this illegal activity. As a
direct and proximate result of this failed system the named
individual Plaintiffs have all suffered brutal, abusive and
racially discriminatory uses of force at the hands of CPD
officers, and they bring this action on behalf of themselves and
thousands of other similarly situated people who, like them, have
been and/or will be at risk of experiencing force by the CPD.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kOC1jtyN

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Moloney, Esq.
          Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
          Jared Gerber, Esq.
          Nefertiti J. Alexander, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, New York 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225 2000

               - and -

          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          Alexa Van Brunt, Esq.
          Vanessa del Valle, Esq.
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
          375 E. Chicago Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (773) 702 9611

               - and -

          Brandon Schiller, Esq.
          APRIL PREYAR, Esq.
          Shiller Preyar LLC
          601 S. California Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60612
          Telephone: (312) 226 4590

               - and -

          Craig Futterman, Esq.
          Randolph N. Stone, Esq.
          MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC
          University of Chicago Law School
          6020 S. University Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60637
          Telephone: (773) 702 9611

          191 North Wacker Drive, No. 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 771 2444

               - and -

          Andrew M. Stroth, Esq.
          Carlton Odim, Esq.
          ACTION INJURY LAW GROUP
          191 North Wacker Drive, No. 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 771 2444


CHINA AGRITECH: Kilpatrick Comments on 9th Circ. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jon Michaelson, Esq., at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, wrote that in Resh v. China Agritech, Inc.,
No. 15-55432, 2017 WL 2261024 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017), the Ninth
Circuit stretched the tolling principles of American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown, Cork &
Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), to new lengths, ruling
that unnamed plaintiffs in two prior would-be securities class
actions could bring a third class action based on the same
underlying events. But defendants facing successive class actions
still have preclusion and "comity" arguments to attempt to shut
down these cases.

The Resh court recounted the history of the prior class actions.
In the first case, the district court denied certification because
the named plaintiffs failed to establish a fraud on the market
theory, thereby facing insurmountable individualized reliance
issues. Following the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of the denial of
certification, the named plaintiffs continued to litigate
individually and ultimately settled their claims. Then a new
plaintiff filed a nearly identical class action complaint on
behalf of the same would-be class in federal court in Delaware,
which promptly shipped the case back to the same Central District
of California judge who had handled the first case. The district
court again rejected class certification, this time finding a lack
of typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) and inadequacy of representation
under Rule 23(a)(4). The parties then dismissed the second case
with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs.

A few months later, a third set of plaintiffs initiated yet
another class suit based on the same facts. This time the (same)
district judge dismissed the case with prejudice and without leave
to amend based on the applicable two-year statute of limitations
for securities law violations. While the district court recognized
that under American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal, the limitations
period would have been tolled as to individual claims of the class
members until class certification had been denied, the Supreme
Court had not extended tolling to an entirely new class action.
And two Ninth Circuit decisions -- Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d
213 (9th Cir. 1987), and Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. INS,
232 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) -- militated against any such
extension of tolling. The district court added that extending
tolling in these circumstances "would allow tolling to extend
indefinitely as class action plaintiffs repeatedly attempt to
demonstrate suitability for class certification on the basis of
different expert testimony and/or other evidence."

The Ninth Circuit panel reversed. In its view, the decision in
Robbin refusing to extend tolling to a subsequent class action had
been "modified" by Catholic Social Services. Based on its reading
of Catholic Social Services, the ability to file a subsequent
class action turns entirely on preclusion rather than tolling:
"[W]e did not write that the availability of a subsequent class
action depended on general tolling principles. Thus, availability
depended on the operation of preclusion and preclusion-related
principles." Resh, 2017 WL 2261024, at *7. The Resh court sought
to reinforce this interpretation by citing three recent Supreme
Court cases.

In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance
Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), the Supreme Court refused to limit
eligibility for class treatment under Rule 23 to claims authorized
by "some other law," because Rule 23 authorizes a district court
to certify a class in every single case that satisfies Rule 23
criteria. Viewing the statute of limitations as "some other law,"
the Resh court reasoned that Shady Grove dictates a limitations
statute cannot be applied to dismiss a putative class action. 2017
WL 2261024, at *7.

The Supreme Court in Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011),
addressed parallel class actions in federal and state court. Bayer
held that even after a federal court had denied class
certification, it could not enjoin the state court from certifying
a class in the parallel state lawsuit. In so ruling, Bayer
explained that the named plaintiffs in the state case had been
unnamed members of the uncertified class in the federal action,
such that they would not be subject to preclusion arising from the
federal denial of class certification. The Resh court further
noted that Bayer stated in dicta that where sequential class
actions had been filed in federal court, the Supreme Court "'would
expect federal court to apply principles of comity to each other's
class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.'"
2017 WL 2261024, at *8 (quoting Bayer, 564 U.S. at 317).

In the third case, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct.
1036 (2016), the Supreme Court observed that "[i]n a case where
representative evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's
individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely
because the claim is brought on behalf of a class." Resh, 2017 WL
2261024, at *8 (quoting Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1046). The
Tyson Foods court based its reasoning on the Rules Enabling Act,
which precludes Rule 23 from abridging any substantive right. In
the Resh panel's view, Tyson Foods at least implicitly supports
the conclusion that "the statute of limitations does not bar a
class action brought by plaintiffs whose individual actions are
not barred."

Based on this analysis, the Ninth Circuit ruled that allowing
"unnamed class members in previously uncertified classes" to bring
a subsequent class lawsuit "would advance the policy objectives
that led the Supreme Court to permit tolling in the first place."
Id. As to the potential for "abusive filing of repetitive class
actions, the current legal system is adequate to respond" because
(1) attorneys operating on contingency "at some point will be
unwilling to assume the financial risk in bringing successive
suits" and (2) "ordinary principles of preclusion and comity will
further reduce incentives to re-litigate frivolous or already
dismissed class claims, and will provide a ready basis for
successor federal district courts to deny class action
certification." Id. at *9. The Resh court thus remanded for the
district court to consider the Rule 23 factors and whether "comity
or preclusion principles" should bar class certification. Id.

The Resh court's reasoning ignores the practical impact of
extending tolling to successive class actions. Attorneys
representing plaintiffs who file successive class claims do have
something to gain--specifically, greater fees by way of
settlement because it will be more difficult and expensive for
defendants to present a preclusion (or comity) defense than a
limitations defense. Stay tuned to learn whether the en banc Ninth
Circuit or the Supreme Court weighs in on this unprecedented
extension of the American Pipe/Crown Cork tolling doctrine. [GN]


COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces Federal Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kirk Allen, writing for Edgar County Watchdogs, reports that
"Coles County under color of state law has violated the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in its unlawful, intentional
and arbitrary, discriminatory assessments against Plaintiffs for
2016 tax year."

After six months of citizens pleading with the County Board to do
the right thing in order to avoid a Federal Lawsuit, the Board
ignored their electorate, and the citizens took matters into their
own hands, suing Coles County in the Federal District Court for
Central District of Illinois.

The verified complaint is Perry v. Coles County 17-CV-2133

The suit implicates Mattoon School District and other taxing
authorities as evidence of collusion with other taxing districts
was uncovered through Freedom of Information Act requests.  E-mail
communications with Coles County officials and those taxing bodies
show those other taxing bodies involved in meetings with the
County  pertaining to assessments.  The reason this is important
is because they have no say in any part of the assessment process.
Why they were involved at all appears to be for the purpose of
bringing pressure on the County to increase property values as a
means of getting more funding through their tax levies.

It appears from the suit, Mattoon School District was in a dire
financial condition and this appears to be the primary reason the
County ignored the voters and rolled the taxes, which ensured the
school district would get their money sooner, rather than later.
In June of 2015, the Mattoon School District had to implement a
deficit reduction plan:

"In June of 2015, the Mattoon School District had to implement a
deficit reduction plan to the Illinois State Board of Education
because tax revenues anticipated in fiscal year 2015 were not
going to be received until fiscal year 2016"

"However, at the urging of the Mattoon School District and other
taxing authorities to complete the Mattoon Township re-assessments
in time for 2016 tax year, Coles County for tax year 2016
completed the reassessment for only the Mattoon township which is
within the Mattoon School District --leaving the other Coles County
townships using the prior assessments from 2015 tax year."

"The fact that the reassessment for 2016 tax year was only
completed for Mattoon Township resulted in an unconstitutionally
disproportionate amount of taxes paid by Mattoon Township
commercial and industrial landowners for 2016 tax year."

According to background information in the complaint, Kelly Kelly
Lockhart, Coles County Regional Planning Executive Director played
a key role in orchestrating the tax assessments claimed to be done
in violation of the 14th Amendment.

"Coles County Regional Planning Executive Director Kelly Lockhart
was a central figure in the planning of the reassessment. Kelly's
involvement cannot be understated as he was involved in several
aspects of the process including: organizing and coordinating
meetings between the taxing bodies of the county and the Coles
County Board; recruiting the assessor Mr. Robert "Bob" Becker to
do the reassessment work; IT related issues; purchase of the
DEVNET assessment software upgrade; discussions with the
Supervisor of Assessments Karen (Childress) Biddle on issues
regarding the assessment process; and acting as a liaison for the
county board."

Just as voters have been saying for months, the County Chairman
and certain board members had little to no interest in fixing this
problem.  Their focus was clearly on satisfying the taxing bodies,
not the voters.

"The County Board Chairman Stan Metzger was not interested in
being fair and equitable with the reassessment."

The County Board Chairman was more concerned with appeasing the
Mattoon School District than he was with doing what was right for
the taxpayers of the county."

"Mr. Metzger wanted the commercial property owners to pay for the
county's mistakes of failing to get the tax bills out on time the
past two years and failing to generally assess the commercial
properties for over 15 years."

The opening and closing claims in the suit pretty much sum it up.

"Coles County, under color of state law, has violated the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in its unlawful,
intentional, arbitrary and discriminatory assessment actions
against Plaintiffs for tax year 2016."

We urge everyone in Coles County to attend the next Coles County
Board meeting and share your thoughts on the County Board's
actions on this matter. [GN]


COLUMBUS, GA: Oct. 11 Hearing to Approve "Harrison" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the case styled, Cleopatra
Harrison v. Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, et al.,
Case No. 4:16-CV-329-CDL (M.D. Ga.), which was filed on behalf of
many people who were charged a victim assessment fee by the
Columbus Recorder's Court, located in Muscogee County, Georgia.

A final fairness hearing will be held by the Honorable Clay D.
Land at 10 a.m. on October 11, 2017, at the United States
Courthouse, 120 12th Street, Columbus, Georgia 31902. The purpose
of the hearing is for the Court to determine (1) whether the
lawsuit should be finally certified as a class action for the
purposes of settlement; (2) whether the Settlement Agreement
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and
(3) whether any properly filed objections are valid.

The plaintiff in this case is Cleopatra Harrison. The Defendants
are the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia; Michael
Cielinski, former Chief Judge, Recorder's Court of Columbus,
Georgia; John Darr, former Sheriff of Columbus, Georgia; Ricky
Boren, Chief of Police of the Columbus Police Department; and
Michael Lincoln, Police Officer in the Columbus Police Department.

The Settlement Class is defined as follows: All persons who, at
any time from October 5, 2014, through the date of the Settlement
Agreement, were assessed or paid a victim assessment fee related
to a proceeding in the Columbus Recorder's Court or any similar
fee for requesting dismissal or non-prosecution of a criminal
action in the Columbus Recorder's Court, including but not limited
to, any fees assessed or paid by any persons pursuant to former
section 2-15.2(1) of the Columbus Code of Ordinances.

The Settlement provides for a total settlement fund of $41,844 to
be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit a qualifying
claim.

Each responding Settlement Class Member will receive restitution
of qualifying fees or assessments as well as damages on a pro rata
basis from the funds remaining after all responding Settlement
Class Members have been paid restitution.

Plaintiff's counsel have prosecuted this litigation without
receiving attorney's fees, and have advanced all of the costs
necessary to investigate and litigate the case. The parties have
agreed that Plaintiff's counsel will receive attorney's fees and
costs of $15,000 if the Settlement Agreement is finally approved.

The parties have further agreed that Plaintiff Cleopatra Harrison
will be paid the sum of $5,000 as compensation for her services as
named plaintiff in this case.

The amount of attorney's fees and expenses awarded to Class
Counsel will not impact the amount of money paid to members of the
Settlement Class.

If the Settlement is finally approved, the Court will enter a
judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
defendants that arise from the assessment or payment of victim
assessment fees during the period covered by the Settlement
Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members will release all of the defendants from any and all claims
relating to victim assessment fees and claims arising as a result
of them.

The Settlement Agreement contains all of the terms of the
Settlement and is available for review at class action for the
purposes of settlement; whether the Settlement Agreement should be
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and whether
any properly filed objections are valid. Members of the Settlement
Class who do not object to the settlement or any other matter to
be considered at the final approval hearing need not attend the
hearing.

Parties who qualify as a Settlement Class Member may opt for any
of these options:

     OPTION 1: Recover a refund of money that the party was
charged or paid for the victim assessment fee plus a damages
payment. To do so, the party must complete and submit a claim form
by September 25, 2017.

     OPTION 2: Opt out of the settlement and the Class. If the
party opts out, the party will not be entitled to a payment under
this settlement, but will retain the right to file his own
lawsuit. To do so, the party must opt out of the Settlement by
September 25, 2017.

     OPTION 3: Remain a member of the Class and exercise the right
to intervene and/or object to the terms of the settlement. To do
so, the party must intervene or object to the Settlement by
September 25, 2017.

IF THE PARTY DOES NOTHING, HE WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT UNDER
THIS SETTLEMENT, AND WILL LOSE ANY RIGHT YOU MAY HAVE TO BRING
YOUR OWN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN THE FUTURE.

Members of the Settlement Class who do not object to the
settlement or any other matter to be considered at the final
approval hearing need not attend the hearing.


CU BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed PacWest Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CU Bancorp, David Rainer, Roberto Barragan, Charles R.
Beauregard, Kenneth J. Cosgrove, David C. Holman, K. Brian Horton,
Eric Kentor, Jeffrey J. Leitzinger, Roy Salter, Daniel Selleck,
Charles Sweetman, Kaveh Varjavand, and Pacwest Bancorp, Case No.
2:17-cv-04303-FMO-AJW (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of CU Bancorp, to enjoin the
proposed transaction announced on April 5, 2017, pursuant to which
CU Bancorp will be acquired by PacWest Bancorp for $12.00 per
share in cash and 0.5308 of a share of PacWest common stock.

According to the complaint, CU Bancorp filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that CU Bancorp stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the
Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the estimated excess cash
flows that CU Bancorp could generate from 2017 to 2021; (ii) the
implied terminal value of CU Bancorp; (iii) the assumed long-term
earnings and asset growth rates of CU Bancorp; and (iv) the inputs
and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to
13.0%.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint says the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest public stockholders of
the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all
material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to
Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act
violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied.

CU Bancorp is the holding company for California United Bank, a
leading edge community-based commercial bank, focusing on products
and services to customers located throughout the metropolitan Los
Angeles, Ventura, Orange, and San Bernardino County markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
      E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com


DISH NETWORK: FTC Imposes $200MM Fine Over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in-
house lawyers should be paying attention, especially to contracted
businesses, after a federal court in Illinois levied a record fine
against Dish Network for illegally making telemarketing calls.

A federal judge ordered Dish to pay more than $200 million for
violating telemarketing laws in a case brought by the Federal
Trade Commission and the states of California, Illinois, North
Carolina and Ohio.  After nearly eight years of litigating and a
six-week bench trial, Judge Sue Myerscough of the Central District
of Illinois ruled that Dish and the independent contractors it
used to help sell its products violated federal and state "Do Not
Call" regulations.

The rules, promulgated by the FTC and state agencies, prohibit
calling consumers who have added themselves to the National Do Not
Call registry and calling consumers who have specifically told the
company not to call them.  The court said Dish is responsible for
the call centers it hires to make millions of calls on its behalf.

Though Dish said it will appeal the decision, the ruling offers
some lessons for in-house lawyers who deal with large-scale
marketing practices and outside retailers.

Control Is a Double-Edged Sword

The court held Dish liable for violations committed by businesses
it contracted with to sell its products, which in-house lawyers
may want to take into account when drafting such agreements.

Though these retailers didn't directly sell Dish products, they
did orchestrate calls to consumers about different Dish offers and
promotions. Dish had contracts with these businesses that
explicitly labeled them as "independent contractors."  Still, the
court said Dish exerted significant control over the retailers and
therefore was liable for their misconduct.

Dish witnesses testified that the retailers "ran their businesses
independently from Dish," but the court said that didn't relieve
the company of its liability.  The court pointed out that Dish's
agreements with the businesses "retained extensive authority to
control the marketing of its programming and services."

"The Court agrees that the Order Entry Retailers were separate,
independent companies," the judge wrote. "An independent company,
however, can be an agent with respect to work performed for a
principal."

Penalties Pile Up

When it comes to phone calls and widespread practices, in-house
counsel should be wary of how quickly fines can add up.
The court ordered Dish to pay $168 million to the federal
government, the highest penalty ever doled out for FTC Act
violations, the agency said. Dish also paid $112 million to the
involved states.

The maximum civil penalty for a violation of an FTC rule is
$11,000 for violations before Feb. 9, 2009, but penalties
increased to $16,000 for violations committed after that to adjust
for inflation.  Dish is then liable for a separate penalty for
each of the illegal calls.

That can lead to an enormous fine.  Even then, the final judgment
fell short of what the plaintiffs wanted.  The government and
states wanted Dish to pay $2.1 billion, roughly 150 percent of its
annual profits.  The judge noted that would impact Dish's ability
to continue operations, and decided that $280 million would
suffice for the "millions and millions of violations of the Do-
Not-Call Laws."


ECODESIGNZ LLC: "Cordoba" Alleges False Ad of "Bamboo Fabric"
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CORDOBA, On Behalf Of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECODESIGNZ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04266 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2017), is an action about alleged
unfair and deceptive consumer sales practices of ECO attendant to
its online advertising and sale, in the United States, of
synthetic rayon masquerading as natural bamboo fabric in certain
of its products. Specifically, ECO is in violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code, the Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, the
False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code
and breach of express warranty.

ECODESIGNZ LLC -- http://www.ecodesignz.com/-- creates consumer
goods from bamboo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (323) 510-4060
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Among Companies Sued by AG Over Opioids
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley on June 21 filed suit
against three large pharmaceutical companies, saying their
"campaign of fraud and deception" led to a startling opioid crisis
in the state.

Mr. Hawley, a Republican, filed suit St. Louis Circuit Court,
naming Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, and Janssen
Pharmaceuticals.  Mr. Hawley said at a news conference that the
suit will seek "hundreds of millions of dollars" in both damages
and civil penalties.

Mr. Hawley said the three companies over several years
misrepresented the addictive risks of opioids, often using
fraudulent science to back their claims.  As a result, thousands
of Missourians dealing with chronic pain were given unnecessary
opioid prescriptions.

"For years now, the citizens of Missouri have been the victims of
a coordinated campaign of fraud and deception about the nature of
drugs known as opioids," Mr. Hawley said.  The companies named in
the suit "have profited from the suffering of Missourians," he
said.

Officials with Janssen and Purdue Pharma said in statements that
their companies share concerns about the opioid crisis, but both
denied wrongdoing.  Janssen spokeswoman Jessica Castles Smith said
the company "has acted appropriately, responsibly and in the best
interests of patients regarding our opioid pain medications . . ."
Purdue Pharma said the company "vigorously" denied the allegations
in the lawsuit and is an industry leader in developing "abuse-
deterrent technology."

Messages seeking comment from Endo Pharmaceuticals were not
immediately returned.

Two other states have filed similar lawsuits against
pharmaceutical companies: Mississippi in 2015 and Ohio in May.

Mr. Hawley said any money awarded in the Missouri suit should go
toward drug rehabilitation services and efforts to help families
affected by drug addiction.

He was joined at the news conference by Eddie Bunnell, a
recovering opioid addict, and Jammie Fabick of St. Louis, whose
17-year-old daughter, Helen, was an honor student who loved
horses.  Her father found Helen dead in her bed in February 2014,
the morning before a father-daughter dance at her high school.

"If this sounds like a nightmare, it has definitely been a
nightmare for our family," Fabbick, 45, said.  "It's something no
parent should ever have to do, to bury her own child, to something
so senseless."

Opioids are a class of drugs that range from prescription pain
medications like oxycodone, codeine and morphine to illegal drugs
like heroin.  The lawsuit said about 500 people in Missouri died
from non-heroin opioid overdoses in 2015. Thousands of others were
hospitalized.

Yet Missouri remains the only state that has failed to create a
prescription drug monitoring system, a database that allows
doctors and pharmacists to keep track of patients' prescriptions.
Lawmakers again this year considered a monitoring system but
failed to approve it.

Mr. Hawley said the Legislature "should act to pass a prescription
drug monitoring program" as part of a multi-pronged effort "to
address what is a national epidemic but one that has had serious
consequences here in the state of Missouri."

Last month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, began an
investigation of the pharmaceutical industry, including two of the
same companies named in Hawley's lawsuit, Purdue Pharma and
Janssen.


ESTATE LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garza" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilberto Garza, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ESTATE LANDSCAPING & LAWN MANAGEMENT,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00313-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2017), alleges that
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-
half times Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked in excess
of forty (40) hours in a single workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a nonexempt, hourly paid,
laborer and landscaping employee.[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
     E-mail: Amurphy@forthepeople.com


FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Stinson Comments on 8th Circuit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Todd A. Noteboom, Esq. and Bryant D. Tchida, Esq. of Stinson
Leonard Street LLP writing for Lexology report that in Zean v.
Fairview Health Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit recently affirmed the district court's dismissal of a
putative class action complaint under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). This ruling affirms that written consent
forms signed by the named plaintiff were properly considered by
the district court in connection with the defendant's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The ruling also affirms that the
written consent forms submitted to the district court in
connection with the motion to dismiss were properly redacted in
light of state and federal health care privacy laws, including the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) and the Minnesota Health Records Act (MHRA), which
controls if its restrictions are more stringent than HIPAA's.

Background

Plaintiff brought a putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota against a nonprofit
corporation that operates hospitals and clinics in Minnesota. The
plaintiff alleged that he purchased a medical device from the
defendant and that afterward he received purported telemarketing
calls and voicemail messages soliciting him to buy home medical
supplies from the defendant in violation of the TCPA.

The defendant moved to dismiss the putative class complaint on the
grounds that the plaintiff gave prior express consent for the
calls at issue. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted
two written consent forms executed by the plaintiff in which the
plaintiff provided his cell phone number to the defendant and
authorized the defendant to contact him by phone (including cell
phone), including with the use of auto-dialers or pre-recorded
messages. The consent forms were submitted to the district court
in redacted form in light of state and federal health care privacy
laws.

The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss,
concluding that the plaintiff had not stated a plausible claim
that the defendant made the calls without the plaintiff's prior
express consent in violation of the TCPA. In particular, the
district court concluded, over the plaintiff's objection, that the
redacted consent forms could be considered in deciding the motion
to dismiss because the forms were "embraced by the pleadings" and
established that the plaintiff gave the defendant prior express
consent to make calls to his cell phone relating to the purchase
of replacement supplies for the medical device he purchased from
the defendant.

Eighth Circuit Affirms District Court's Dismissal of Putative TCPA
Class Complaint

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
putative TCPA class complaint. With respect to the district
court's consideration of the written consent forms in connection
with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the panel majority observed that,
although materials outside the pleadings cannot normally be
considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, consideration of the consent
forms was proper in this case because the documents were part of a
"contractual relationship" between the plaintiff and defendant and
were thus embraced by the pleadings.

The Eighth Circuit also affirmed that the defendant's redaction of
the written consent forms was proper in light of state and federal
health care privacy laws, including HIPAA and the more stringent
MHRA. The panel majority found persuasive the fact that at no time
before the district court ruled did the plaintiff (i) give consent
to disclose the unredacted consent forms, (ii) affirm or deny that
he signed the consent forms or that they were part of his
contractual relationship with the defendant, or (iii) ask the
court to convert the motion to one for summary judgment with the
opportunity for limited discovery on the issue of prior express
consent. The panel majority observed further that "[t]he reason
for [plaintiff's] tactical decision is not hard to infer, because
opening up these fact-intensive issues would likely preclude class
certification or establish that [plaintiff] was not a member of
the putative class."

Finally, the panel majority agreed with the district court's
conclusion that the calls at issue fell within the scope of
plaintiff's prior express consent because the calls were "closely
related to the purpose for which the telephone number was
originally provided."

Key Takeaways

Putative TCPA class action claims in the health care context
implicate unique issues--including state and federal health care
privacy laws--that can significantly impact dispositive and class
certification motion practice. Defendants facing such claims
should be sure to carefully consider whether written consent forms
could provide a basis for dismissal of the named plaintiff's
claims or could lead to a denial of class certification in light
of the individualized fact issues implicated by providing and/or
revoking prior express consent under the TCPA.

Health systems, hospitals and health care providers should also be
sure to periodically review their consent forms and procedures for
compliance with the TCPA, especially if they make calls to
patients regarding home medical equipment or replacement supplies.
[GN]


FARMERS GROUP: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter & Plumbing, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Farmers Group, Inc. d/b/a
Farmers Insurance, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03315 (N.D. Cal.,
June 8, 2017), accuses Defendant of knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephones, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Farmers Group, Inc., doing business as Farmers Underwriters
Association, operates as a multiline insurer in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Swigart, Esq.
     Yana Hart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            yana@westcoastlitigation.com


FORJAS TAURUS: Must Produce Documents in "Burrow" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM BURROW and OMA LOUISE BURROW,
Plaintiffs, v. FORJAS TAURUS S.A. and BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL,
L.C., Defendants, Case No. 16-21606-Civ-TORRES (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Edwin G. Torres of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
compel responses to their first request for production to
Defendant Forjas.

On Oct. 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs purchased a Rossi model R35102
revolver, S/N EX43410 from Academy Sports + Outdoors for $259.99.

They are said to have purchased the revolver for protection
against coyotes present on their farm.  In February 2014, after a
day of working on their farm, the Plaintiffs returned to their
primary residence.  It was as they were removing items from their
vehicle that Mrs. Burrow accidentally dropped the revolver.  The
revolver fired upon hitting the ground and a bullet struck Mrs.
Burrow in the knee.  The Plaintiffs maintain that the safety was
on and the revolver was properly holstered when dropped.

On May 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against
the Defendants alleging both companies knowingly and negligently
designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold a class of revolvers
with safety mechanisms that were defective.  Forjas is the
manufacturer of the revolvers and is based in Brazil while
Braztech is the distributor and seller of the revolvers and is
based in Florida.  It is argued that all of the revolvers contain
at least one defect in the alignment of the hammer's rebound slide
seat and that some the revolvers also contain another defect in a
separate hammer block component.  These safety mechanisms are
designed to prevent "drop-fire" incidents like the one Plaintiffs
alleged happen.

Defendant Braztech, on June 27, 2016; and Defendant Forjas, on
Jan. 6, 2017, answered the Complaint.  At the commencement of
discovery, the Plaintiffs sent their first request for production
to Defendant Forjas on Jan. 24, 2017.  Defendant Forjas timely
responded on Feb. 23, 2017.  In response to each of the
Plaintiffs' 34 requests to production, the Defendant objects to
request because it seeks documents located in the Federative
Republic of Brazil and there is currently no treaty in place
between the United States and Brazil that authorizes and regulates
the taking of evidence abroad.  Forjas Taurus, in an abundance of
caution, files and serves Article 5(j) of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77 based objections now, and
reserves the right to file additional objections, if necessary.

The Plaintiffs conferred with the Defendant after receiving the
response and the Defendant maintained its objection while also
declining to supplement any additional objections pursuant to the
Federal Rules when the Plaintiffs gave the opportunity to do so.
As such, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel.

Judge Torres ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel is granted.  The Defendant is ordered to produce to the
Plaintiffs any responsive documents to the applicable discovery
requests within 14 days of the entry of the Order.  Any additional
objections must be made in a supplemental response also due within
21 days of the entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/VUwOiK from Leagle.com.

William Burrow, Plaintiff, represented by Brannon J. Buck --
bbuck@badhambuck.com -- Badham & Buck, LLC, pro hac vice.

William Burrow, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory A. Brockwell,
Letman, Siegal & Payne, P.C., pro hac vice, Vincent Swiney --
jvs@sblaw.net -- Swiney & Bellenger, LLC, pro hac vice & Andrew
Franklin Knopf, Knopf Bigger.

Oma Louise Burrow, Plaintiff, represented by Brannon J. Buck,
Badham & Buck, LLC, pro hac vice, Gregory A. Brockwell, Letman,
Siegal & Payne, P.C., pro hac vice, Vincent Swiney, Swiney &
Bellenger, LLC, pro hac vice & Andrew Franklin Knopf, Knopf
Bigger.

Forjas Taurus, S.A., Defendant, represented by John Patrick Marino
-- jmarino@sgrlaw.com -- Smith Gambrell Russell.

Braztech International, L.C., Defendant, represented by John
Patrick Marino, Smith Gambrell Russell, John F. Weeks, IV --
jweeks@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, pro hac vice
& Timothy A. Bumann -- tbumann@sgrlaw.com -- Smith Gambrell &
Russell LLP, pro hac vice.


GENERAL MOTORS: Bellwether Ignition Defect Case Heads to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that
both sides scored points on June 9 as another bellwether ignition
defect case against General Motors heads toward trial next month
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Judge Jesse Furman issued a 19-page order teeing up the case by
dealing with pretrial requests.  The judge dealt with four motions
in limine from attorneys representing Dennis Ward, an Arizona man
alleging that GM's highly-publicized ignition defect caused his
crash and lasting injuries.

Judge Furman said yes one to motion, no to two and maybe to the
other.  Plus, the judge granted Mr. Ward's request for advance
ruling on admitting evidence of 60 similar instances -- but said
no to some of them in terms of proving causation and existence of
a defect.

Among the cases Judge Furman ruled out as evidence is the one that
discovered the ignition defect that was causing engines to switch
off at highway speeds, shutting down power for steering, brakes
and air bags.

Ken and Beth Melton filed the lawsuit that launched more than
1,000 others -- plus 30 million recalls and $35 million in fines
and fees against General Motors, now called new GM in the
resulting multidistrict litigation in New York.  Their lawyer,
Lance Cooper of Marietta, hired an investigator who found the
problem they said caused the crash that killed 29-year-old Brooke
Melton.

Brooke Melton's parents settled their initial lawsuit in 2013 for
$5 million -- a figure that was confidential but disclosed by GM
in discovery.  In 2014, the Meltons tried to give the money back
and filed a lawsuit alleging fraud, after learning from a document
produced for Congress that an engineer at GM knew about the defect
and didn't disclose it to the public or them -- even in a
deposition.  The next year, they settled again for another
undisclosed but higher figure, leaving the offspring plaintiffs to
continue litigating.

Judge Furman said excluding the Melton case from proving causation
was "an easy call" because it was a different kind of car with a
different switch.  Melton had a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. Ward was
driving a 2009 Chevrolet HHR.

The Ward case follows three others tried before Furman.
Plaintiffs counsel celebrated the 54 similar incidents the judge
allowed into evidence.

"GM's defective ignition switch cast its dark and deadly cloud
across the entirety of our country, sparing very few," said Robert
Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales of Corpus Christi, Texas.  "GM
spins its story and its deadly cover-up to attempt to understate
just how many dozens and dozens of times it had notice of its
defect, of the deaths and injuries it is responsible for and of
the countless innocent families devastated by its corporate
greed."

GM's lead counsel, Andrew Baker Bloomer --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago,
could not be reached.

In one clear victory for Ward on June 9, Furman granted a motion
to exclude his traffic ticket from the scene of the crash.
Mr. Ward argued that Arizona law makes civil traffic citations
inadmissible in litigation.  GM countered that the federal rules
are different and do allow such evidence.

"The court concludes that Ward has the better of the argument,"
Judge Furman wrote.  "Although there is general consensus that the
Federal Rules of Evidence ordinarily govern in diversity cases,
courts disagree about" which cases apply.


GREEN TREE: Ohio Court Certifies Class in "Geary"
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN & CONNIE GEARY, on behalf of
Themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. GREEN
TREE SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-00522 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class with modifications.

This case arises from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") consequences of letters that Defendant Green Tree sent
to the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.  The Plaintiffs
are Ohio residents who took out a loan from CitiFinancial, Inc. to
finance the purchase of an automobile.  Following a bankruptcy and
a reaffirmation agreement, they paid off the loan with
CitiFinancial.

Then, Green Tree acquired the loan from CitiFinancial, and sent
the Plaintiffs an Initial Communication on Oct. 16, 2013 that did
not include the Validation Notice.  The Plaintiffs extrapolate
from their experience, the Defendant's admissions that the 11
Initial Communications did not contain the Validation Notice, the
Plaintiffs' contention that six of the 11 letters required the
Validation Notice, and the 31,000 debtors-in-default to whom the
Defendant sent the 11 initial communications, that the Defendant
violated the FDCPA by sending these letters to several thousand
borrowers-in-default without the Validation Notice.  The
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 3, 2014, alleging four
individual counts and four class counts of FDCPA violations.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss individual Counts II, III,
and IV of the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  In the
alternative, the Defendant asked the Court to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations in Class Counts I and II under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A).  The Court granted
the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV and Class Count II and
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss individual Counts II and
III, and Class Count I.  In denying the motion to dismiss, the
Court found that the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts that
Defendant was a "debt collector" in connection with their loan and
the Defendant's Initial Communication to the Plaintiffs was a
communication in connection with the collection of a debt under
the FDCPA.  The Court declined, without the benefit of a fully
briefed motion for class certification, to strike the class
allegations associated with Class Count I.  Therefore, individual
Counts I, II, and III, and Class Counts I and III remain to be
adjudicated.

After the parties engaged in class discovery, the Plaintiffs
brought the instant motion to certify class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).  They seek to certify the class
of all persons who were sent by the Defendant from June 3, 2014 to
present, one or more letters.  The Defendant opposes the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and requested oral argument.
The Court held oral argument on June 12, 2017.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, with
the following modifications: (i) it granted certification of six
subclasses, rather than one class, based on the class members to
whom the Defendant sent each letter the Plaintiffs allege to
violate the FDCPA by omitting the Validation Notice; and (ii) it
granted certification for the purposes of liability and statutory
damages (as opposed to actual damages and emotional distress)
only.

Accordingly, the six subclasses are certified, for the purposes of
liability and statutory damages only, as follows:

     a. All persons who were sent by the Defendant from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 4.

     b. All persons who were sent by the Defendant from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 5.

     c. All persons who were sent by the Defendant from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 6.

     d. All persons who were sent by the Defendant, from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 7.

     e. All persons who were sent by the Defendant, from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 8.

     f. All persons who were sent by the Defendant from June 3,
2014 to present, the letter in the form of the exemplar attached
to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as Exhibit 9.

The Court certified this action as a class action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and designated the
Plaintiffs as the representatives of the six subclasses.

In addition, the Court designated the law firm of Mobile &
Thompson Co., LPA as Class Counsel for the subclasses.  The Court
directed the Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for the Defendant to
meet and confer, and to provide the Court with a proposed plan for
providing notice to the potential class action members.  The
parties will report to the Court within 30 days of the Order with
such proposed plan.  If the parties are unable to agree on notice,
the parties will submit separate proposed notices by the same
date.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/1dnD4S from Leagle.com.

Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel, Mediator, represented by Mark
Rogers Abel, U.S. District Court.

Brian Geary, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Zieg --
mzieg@ntlegal.com -- Nobile & Thompson Co., LPA, Eric E. Willison
& James E. Nobile, Nobile & Thompson Co., L.P.A..

Connie Geary, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Zieg, Nobile &
Thompson Co., LPA, Eric E. Willison & James E. Nobile --
jenobile@ntlegal.com -- Nobile & Thompson Co., L.P.A..

Green Tree Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by David J.
Demers -- ddemers@cdgattorneys.com -- Cooke, Demers & Gleason,
LLC, Andrew P. Cooke -- acooke@cdgattorneys.com -- Cooke, Demers &
Gleason, LLC, Justin A. Angelo, Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice &
Martin C. Bryce, Jr. -- BRYCEBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr
LLP, pro hac vice.


GREGORY TURZA: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Holtzman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Gregory P. Turza filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit entitled Ira Holtzman v. Gregory Turza,
Case No. 1:08-cv-02014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
began almost a decade ago, when Northbrook certified public
accountant Ira Holtzman filed a class-action lawsuit against
Skokie lawyer Gregory Turza for sending biweekly faxes to
advertise his services.  In 2013, Mr. Holtzman's lawyers, Anderson
& Wanca in Rolling Meadows and Bock & Hatch in Chicago, won a $4.2
million judgment for the class when a judge determined Mr. Turza
had violated the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Ira Holtzman v. Gregory Turza,
Case No. 17-2224, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement due for Appellant Gregory P. Turza by
      June 20, 2017;

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by June 28, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's brief due on or before July 24, 2017, for
      Gregory P. Turza.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee IRA HOLTZMAN, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: david@classlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellant GREGORY P. TURZA is represented by:

          Steven D. Pearson, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          123 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 474-7900
          Facsimile: (312) 474-7898
          E-mail: spearson@cozen.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Faces "Bitton" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
MACHELLE BITTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
and JD PALATINE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02580-JD (E.D.
Pa., June 8, 2017), was filed on behalf of thousands of employment
applicants throughout the country who have been the subject of
alleged unfair, prejudicial, misleading and illegal background
reports performed by JD Palatine and sold to employers.

According to the complaint, JD Palatine has adopted and maintained
a policy and practice of knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and
willfully reporting outdated adverse public record information
that is required to be excluded from the consumer reports that it
sells.

JD Palatine's practice harms consumers seeking employment by
prejudicing their employers and prospective employers with
outdated, adverse information, and also harms interstate commerce
as a whole.

The case alleges willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Defendant JD Palatine is a consumer reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumilas, Esq.
     David A. Searles, Esq.
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     Land Title Building, Suite 1902
     100 South Broad Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19110
     Phone: 215.735.8600
     Fax: 215.940.8000
     E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
     Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
     THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
     3525 Piedmont Road
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     Phone: 404.205.5029
            404.254.0842
     Fax: 866.800.1482
     E-mail:  aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
              js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


ING USA ANNUITY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Abbit" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit titled Ernest Abbit v. ING USA Annuity and
Life Ins., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02310-GPC-WVG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court previously
certified two classes and one subclass of purchasers of Secure
Index fixed index annuity contract from ING USA.

The appellate case is captioned as Ernest Abbit v. ING USA Annuity
and Life Ins., et al., Case No. 17-55836, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on June 21, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 13, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- Appellant Ernest O. Abbit's opening brief is due on
      September 21, 2017;

   -- Appellees ING U.S., Inc. and ING USA Annuity and Life
      Insurance Company's answering brief is due on October 23,
      2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ERNEST O. ABBIT, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
          HUTTON LAW GROUP
          12671 High Bluff Dr., Suite 130
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-3500
          Facsimile: (858) 793-3501
          E-mail: drew@law-hutton.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Tatro, Esq.
          TATRO & ZAMOYSKI, LLP
          12760 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 244-5032
          Facsimile: (858) 847-0032
          E-mail: tim@tatrozamoyski.com

Defendants-Appellees ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and ING U.S., INC., are represented by:

          Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 West Market Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 681-0349
          Facsimile: (502) 779-8249
          E-mail: cjohnson@stites.com

               - and -

          David J. Noonan, Esq.
          NOONAN LANCE BOYER & BANACH, LLP
          701 Island Avenue, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 780-0880
          Facsimile: (619) 231-9593
          E-mail: dnoonan@knlh.com

Defendant-Appellee ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 West Market Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 681-0583
          Facsimile: (502) 779-9859
          E-mail: mleigh@stites.com


JAGGED PEAK: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
class action complaint was filed against Jagged Peak Energy Inc.
(NYSE: JAG) in the District Court, Denver County, State of
Colorado. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Jagged Peak securities pursuant to the company's public offering
on January 27, 2017 (the "Offering"), for alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 by Jagged Peak's officers and
directors. Jagged Peak, an independent oil and natural gas
company, focuses on the acquisition and development of
unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas
reserves in the Southern Delaware basin, a sub-basin of the
Permian basin of West Texas.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/jagged-peak-energy-
inc.

Jagged Peak Accused of Filing Misleading Registration Statement

According to the complaint, on January 27, 2017, Jagged Peak held
the Offering, selling 31,599,334 shares at a price of $15.00 per
share, earning approximately $474 million in proceeds. However,
Jagged Peak officials issued misleading statements in the
registration statement and incorporated offering materials that
the company filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in support of the Offering. In particular, Jagged Peak presented a
highly positive picture of the company's business, performance,
prospects, and acreage, while omitting that many of its wells were
positioned in an area where extractability had not been tested,
therefore presenting a significant risk that its wells would
produce less than other wells in the Southern Delaware Basin. As
investors learned of Jagged Peak's disadvantageous position,
Jagged Peak's stock has fallen approximately 20% since the
Offering.

Jagged Peak Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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

         Leonid Kandinov
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com


JAGUAR LAND: Faces "Baar" Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BAAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC and
JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04142-WJM-
MF (D.N.J., June 8, 2017), is an antitrust, state competition law
and unjust enrichment suit against Defendants arising out of the
implementation and enforcement of an alleged unlawful
anticompetitive agreement, which prohibits purchasers of new JLR
motor vehicles from exporting their JLR Vehicles outside of the
United States for resale for up to one year from the date of
delivery. The case alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the laws of the several states.

Defendant JLR North America, LLC is a U.S. distributor of luxury
cars and sport utility vehicles bearing the Jaguar and Land Rover
(including Range Rover) marques. JLR is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Defendant Jaguar Land Rover Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
     COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
     Park 80 Plaza West-One
     250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
     Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
     Phone: 201-845-9600
     E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Michael Buchman, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-577-0050
     Fax: 212-577-0054
     E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     Reza Sina, Esq.
     SINA LAW GROUP
     888 West 6th Street, 11th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: 310-957-2057
     E-mail: rez@sinalawgroup.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bristo-Myers Ruling to Impact Talc Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Supreme Court could have a "chilling effect" on the many lawsuits
filed in St. Louis claiming talcum powder causes a deadly form of
cancer in women, including cases under appeal in which stricken
women and their survivors have been awarded more than $300
million, experts said on June 20.

Justices ruled 8-1 on June 19 that hundreds of out-state-residents
can't sue Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in California state court over
adverse reactions to the blood thinner Plavix.  It followed a
similar ruling in May related to out-of-state injury claims
against BNSF Railway Co. Both were seen as wins for companies
opposed to "venue shopping," in which those filing suit seek out
favorable state courts.

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, St. Louis
Circuit Judge Rex Burlison declared a mistrial in a Missouri state
court case in which three plaintiffs, two from out-of-state, sued
Johnson & Johnson, claiming its talcum powder caused ovarian
cancer.

More than 1,000 others have filed similar lawsuits in St. Louis
against Johnson & Johnson, but most don't live in Missouri.  Five
trials have already taken place over the past 16 months.  In four
of those cases, jurors awarded more than $300 million combined.

Johnson & Johnson believes that the Supreme Court ruling "requires
reversal of the talc cases that are currently under appeal in St.
Louis," spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in an email.  She said the
ruling "makes it clear that Johnson & Johnson was wrongfully
forced to defend itself in multiple trials in Missouri, a state
with no connection to the plaintiffs."

Jim Onder, whose suburban St. Louis-based law firm is representing
many women and survivors who filed suit, said Missouri is a proper
venue because Johnson & Johnson, though based in New Jersey, uses
a factory in Union, Missouri, to package and label talcum
products.

"If we can establish specific jurisdiction, which we think we can,
at that point we can hold the prior verdicts," Mr. Onder said.

Experts aren't so sure.

The Supreme Court ruling "makes it impossible for groups of
plaintiffs in many states to sue a defendant in the forum of the
plaintiffs' choosing," said Howard Erichson, a professor
specializing in civil litigation at Fordham University School of
Law.

"The decision means that non-Missouri plaintiffs are going to have
a very hard time keeping their cases against Johnson & Johnson,"
Mr. Erichson said.

Michael Duffy, a liability attorney with Duffy & Duffy in
Uniondale, New York, said the Supreme Court ruling "really puts a
horrific burden on the plaintiff," and likely means that the four
cases involving multi-million-dollar awards in St. Louis will be
re-tried.

Mr. Duffy criticized the Supreme Court decision as a "waste of
judicial resources" that will require potentially thousands of
similar cases to be heard across the country, and one that makes
future consolidation of cases unlikely.

"The Supreme Court's decision has put a chilling effect on the
ability to do that," Mr. Duffy said.

Talc is the softest of minerals, mined from deposits around the
world, including the U.S.  It is crushed into a white powder and
has been widely used in cosmetics and other personal care products
to absorb moisture since at least 1894, when Johnson & Johnson's
baby powder was launched.  Its main use is in a variety of other
products, including paint and plastics.

Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian
cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major
health groups have declared talc harmless.  But the International
Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as
"possibly carcinogenic."


JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators and Riggers Subclasses Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled AARON KEITH ET AL., Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOYCE
STEEL ERECTION, LTD., ET AL, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-
01302-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Schroeder
partly granted Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
and notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, and certifies the
collective action into two sub-classes:

   "all current and former Crane Operators who were paid on an
   hourly basis, and were employed by Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd.
   at any time within the three-year period immediately preceding
   entry of this Order"; and

   "all current and former Riggers who were paid on an hourly
   basis, and were employed by Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. at any
   time within the three-year period immediately preceding entry
   of this Order".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=alBbDo2e


LOVING ARMS: Faces "Long" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA LONG and LADORCAS C. EVANS, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. LOVING
ARMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02388-JTF-dkv (W.D. Tenn.,
June 7, 2017), alleges that when Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees worked more than forty (40) hours during a
week, Defendant did not compensate these employees at a rate of
"one and one-half times the regular rate at which "the employees
were actually employed" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff, Cynthia Long, was hired by Defendant as a Direct
Support Professional.  She provides direct care and in-home
companionship services to individuals. Plaintiff, LaDorcas C.
Evans, was hired by Defendant as a House Manager.

LOVING ARMS, LLC -- http://www.lovingarmsllc.com/-- provides in-
home living assistance for seniors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason J. Yasinsky, Esq.
     Jonathan Louis May, Esq.
     NAHON, SAHAROVICH & TROTZ, PLC
     488 S. Mendenhall
     Memphis, TN 38117
     Phone: 901-683-7000
     Email: jyasinsky@nstlaw.com
            jlmay@nstlaw.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Appeals "McKinney-Drobnis" Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis,
Joseph B. Piccola and Camille Berlese, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-06450-MMC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

The respondent in the appeal is the District Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on November 4, 2016, and the cause of action is stated
as "Diversity-Breach of Contract."

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, provides therapeutic massage and
spa services in the United States.  The company's services include
Swedish massage, deep tissue massage, sports massage, prenatal
massage, reflexology, trigger point therapy, cranial sacral
therapy, and healthy skin facials.  The Company also owns and
operates franchise locations in the United States.  The Company
was founded in 2002 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.  Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC is a former subsidiary of Natural Wellness
USA, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Massage Envy Franchising, LLC
v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 17-71722, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, is represented
by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Jason Kim, Esq.
          Martie Kutscher, Esq.
          Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  jskim@gibsondunn.com
                  mkutscher@gibsondunn.com
                  kscolnick@gibsondunn.com

Real-Parties in Interest BAERBEL MCKINNEY-DROBNIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOSEPH B. PICCOLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
CAMILLE BERLESE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Trenton Ross Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN KRINK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com


MONTGOMERY, GA: Hamilton Drops Class Action Over Taxes
------------------------------------------------------
Named Plaintiff, S. Keith Hamilton on December 18, 2013, brought
civil action styled as, KEITH HAMILTON v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
GEORGIA, Montgomery County Court, Civil Action No. 13CV159, as a
class action, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, under the provisions of O.C.G.A. 9-11-23,
challenging Montgomery County's use of Insurance Premium Tax
Proceeds.

The Named Plaintiff seeks:

     -- a refund of taxes pursuant to O.C.G.A. 48-5-380, and

     -- mandamus, declaratory judgment, mandatory injunction
        and other equitable relief.

Named Plaintiff contends the taxes were improperly assessed and
collected by Montgomery County based on Montgomery County's
alleged failure to use Insurance Premium Tax Proceeds to reduce
the millage rate for taxpayers in the unincorporated area of
Montgomery County by millage equivalent amounts equal to the
Insurance Premium Tax Proceeds used to fun certain recycling and
convenience centers maintained by Montgomery County.

By Orders dated July 1, 2014, and January 30, 2015, the Superior
Court of Montgomery County granted the parties' consent motion for
class certification under O.C.G.A. 9-11-23(B)(2), and held that
the class shall consist of Montgomery County taxpayers in the
unincorporated portion of Montgomery County who paid property
taxes from 2006 through 2014 (the Class or Class Members).

Due to recent appellate rulings, including the ruling in
MONTGOMERY CTY. V. HAMILTON, 337 Ga. App. 500, 788 S.E.2d 89
(2016), Named Plaintiff has determined that a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of his civil action is appropriate at this time.

The Named Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice, seeking dismissal in the Superior Court of
Montgomery County.

The Superior Court of Montgomery County will hold a hearing on
July 31, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., at the Montgomery County Courthouse,
in Mount Vernon, Georgia, to consider the Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice.  Any objection to Named Plaintiffs
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice shall be made in
writing and contain the specific grounds for such objection.

Any person filing an objection must appear at such hearing.
Further, the objection shall either be hand-delivered to the
office of the Clerk of Superior Court of Montgomery County at
least 10 days prior to the hearing or sent by first class mail to
Post Office Box 311, Mount Vernon, GA 30445, Attn: Clerk of
Superior Court, and post-marked at least 10 days prior to the
hearing with copies of any such objection being mailed to Tom A.
Peterson IV and to:

     Howard C. Kaufold, Jr.
     Post Office Box 1840
     Vidalia, GA 30475

Should you have any questions about this Notice, please contact
Class Counsel:

     Tom A. Peterson IV, Esq.
     The Law Firm of Tom A. Peterson IV, LLC
     Post Office Box 2037
     Vidalia, GA 30475
     Tel: (912) 537-6388
     Fax: (912) 537-6391


KABBAGE INC: Henry's Bid to Dismiss "Custom" Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case A CUSTOM HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. KABBAGE, INC.; GULFCO LEASING, LLC; MICHAEL HENRY,
And JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 2513 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in
part and denied in part Defendant Henry's motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff Custom alleges that, on Feb. 17, 2016, Defendants
Kabbage, Gulfco, Henry, and persons unknown caused to be sent to
Custom an unsolicited fax advertising money lending services.
Custom asserts that it had no prior relationship with any
Defendant and never gave anyone permission to send the fax.  The
one-page fax advertised loan products and services offered,
originated, and/or funded by all of the Defendants.  The bottom of
the faxed page states: "To Opt Out of future Faxes -- Call
8446355155."  Custom alleges that this fax contains neither a
clear and conspicuous opt-out notice nor a ready and costless
means for opting out.

Custom filed its original Complaint on Feb. 23, 2016 and later
amended it, claiming violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and state conversion law.  Its
TCPA count ("Count I") is based on the Defendants' transmitting
faxes without first obtaining prior express invitation or
permission, which faxes failed to comply with the TCPA's opt-out
notice requirements.  Under the TCPA, Custom seeks statutory
damages, to be trebled if the facts show that the Defendants acted
willfully, along with injunctive and declaratory relief.  For its
conversion count ("Count II"), Custom asks for an award of
"appropriate damages" along with punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.  Finally, Custom seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, actual damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the ICFA
("Count III").

A few months after Custom filed suit, Gulfco petitioned for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Henry, who is Gulfco's President, sole
shareholder, and COO, agreed during meetings with creditors that
Custom's cause of action against Gulfco would be allowed to
continue after the close of bankruptcy proceedings.  The Court
stayed this case pending Gulfco's bankruptcy proceeding.

By March 23, 2017, the Gulfco bankruptcy had closed.  On April 14,
2017, Custom filed a motion to re-open discovery prior to May 3,
2017, which was the date set for the next status conference in the
case.  The Court was not able to hear it until May 3, 2017, and on
that date lifted the discovery stay and set briefing schedules on
Henry's motions to dismiss.  But about a week before the Court
lifted the stay, on April 27, 2017, Custom served a subpoena on
WestFax for production of documents.  It filed a misconduct
complaint with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary
Commission against Custom's counsel, the law firm of Bock and
Hatch, concerning issuance of this subpoena during the stay.

Henry alleges that he offered to settle Custom's claim for all
that it is worth by sending to Custom a settlement proposal
accompanied by a check for $1,500.  Although counsel for Custom
avers that neither his law firm nor Custom received a $1,500 check
from Gulfco, Henry strenuously states otherwise, providing to the
Court a letter dated March 1, 2016 addressed to Custom's
registered agent.  Henry moves to dismiss all counts of Custom's
Amended Complaint based on a melange of arguments.

The Court dismissed Counts I and II for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted.

In Count I, Henry first argues that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear this case because the requirements of
diversity are not met.  The Court can conceive of no universe in
which disagreement over the timing of discovery disclosures would
destroy subject-matter jurisdiction.  Henry next proposes that
Gulfco's Chapter 7 corporate bankruptcy resolved Custom's pending
claims against him individually.  Even if Custom's claims against
Gulfco were extinguished in bankruptcy, Henry's attempt to invoke
that discharge to shroud him personally would still be a non-
sequitur.  The Court thus denies Henry's Rule 12(b)(1) Motions in
relevant part.  Next, Henry points to the D.C. Circuit's opinion
in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, 852 F.3d 1078, arguing
that Custom fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
That recent opinion held that the TCPA does not grant the FCC
authority to require opt-out notices on solicited faxes.  Henry
also asserts that Custom fails to name one instance or offer any
proof that Defendant Henry did anything improper.  The Court finds
that Custom adequately pleads Henry's personal involvement in
sending the unsolicited fax.  Finally, Henry contends that he sent
Custom a $1,500 check from a Gulfco account that went uncashed and
unreturned.  With equal measure, Henry now offers to deposit
$1,500 in "certified funds" for Custom under Rule 68.  The thrust
of his argument is that his offer to settle Custom's TCPA claim
for all it's worth moots Custom's suit.  The Court reserves ruling
on the effect of a proper Rule 67 motion accompanied by a request
for an adverse judgment in favor of Custom.  For these reasons,
the Court granted in part Henry's motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/saBG1g from Leagle.com.

A Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by James Michael Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm,
LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC.

A Custom Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by John P. Orellana --  johno@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Kimberly M. Watt --
kimberly@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, Tod Allen Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock --  phil@classlawyers.com --
Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC.

Kabbage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Silver --
mark.silver@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan
Lewis Garroway -- nathan.garroway@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP &
Shannon Young Shin -- shannon.shin@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Celtic Bank Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bart Thomas
Murphy -- bart.murphy@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Heather
Lynn Maly -- Heather.Maly@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller, Isaac J.
Colunga -- isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP & Martha
L. O'Connor -- Martha.O'Connor@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP.

Michael Henry, Defendant, Pro Se.

Kabbage, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Mark A. Silver,
Dentons US LLP, Nathan Lewis Garroway, Dentons US LLP & Shannon
Young Shin, Dentons US LLP.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Order in "Kurtz" Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Costco Wholesale
Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-1142,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, 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, including the Kurtz case.

In the Kurtz action (14-CV-1142), 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.

The appellate case is captioned as Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Case No. 17-1856, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Kurtz, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented
by:

          Brian R. Matsui, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-8784
          E-mail: bmatsui@mofo.com

Defendant-Appellant Kimberly-Clark Corporation is represented by:

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-8555
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com


KPMG: Settles Asian Job Applicants Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
KPMG agreed to pay $420,000 to resolve a federal investigation
that found the company discriminated against Asian job applicants
at a New Jersey facility, part of the years-long scrutiny over the
accounting firm's practices for alleged discrimination in separate
cases.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs found that the Netherlands-based accounting
firm discriminated against 60 Asian applicants for position at its
facility in Short Hills, New Jersey, after it launched an
investigation between 2011 and 2013.

The company, among the four largest accounting firms in the world,
has more than $14 million in contracts with federal agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, NASA and the IRS. Those contracts
allow it to fall under the purview of the Labor Department's
contract compliance office, which brings claims of workplace
equity and discrimination against federal contractors.
The Labor Department in April settled a high-profile case with
Palantir Technologies, the data analytics startup, based on claims
that hiring practices discriminated against Asian applicants.  The
Palo Alto-based tech firm agreed to pay more than $1.6 million.

President Donald Trump's preliminary budget proposes merging the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP, with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sparked
complaints from more than 70 civil rights groups to Labor
Secretary Alexander Acosta, Office of Management and Budget
director Mick Mulvaney and congressional leadership.  The groups
argued the merger would mean losing key civil rights protections
for working people.

"The OFCCP plays a unique and crucial role in ensuring that
federal contractors do their part to improve diversity and pay
equity in the workplace and proactively promote employment
opportunities for underrepresented groups," said Judy Conti,
federal advocacy coordinator with the National Employment Law
Project.  "We absolutely need a strong OFCCP that's separate from
the EEOC."

In a hearing before a House appropriations committee, Mr. Acosta
assured legislators that the offices would retain its functions
and the merger simply was a way to streamline the process.  The
Labor Department's contract compliance office can proactively
monitor workplace diversity and pay equity and the EEOC typically
responds to complaints.

Under the KPMG settlement agreement, the company did not
acknowledge liability but agreed to the settlement amount for back
pay, interest and benefits to the affected applicants.  The
company also agreed to provide job opportunities to six of the
applicants as positions become available and further "will take
steps to ensure its personnel practices, including record-keeping
and internal auditing procedures, meet legal requirements,"
according to a Department of Labor statement.

KPMG also faces a class action filed in 2011, currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
that accuses the firm of systematic gender discrimination in pay
and promotion, discrimination based on pregnancy and failure to
investigate complaints of harassment.  A New York judge agreed to
let about 9,000 women from around the country join the claims in
the case.  Attorneys said about 1,100 women, current and former
employees, have joined the challenge claiming unfair compensation.

The most recent complaint argues that, "as one of the 'Big Four'
accounting firms, KPMG is part of an elite cadre of accountancy
and professional services firms that help set industry standards.
But rather than use its vast resources and status to stamp out
gender discrimination, KPMG actively perpetuates it."

Peter Hughes at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Colleen
Kenney at Sidley Austin and Steven Moore at Constangy, Brooks,
Smith & Prophete represent KPMG in the pending New York case.  The
attorneys did not respond to requests for comment on June 9.

KPMG's attorneys rejected the long litany of allegations against
the firm in a lengthy response last year to the lawsuit.

"KPMG denies that gender or any impermissible factor played any
role in any of KPMG's various performance, promotion or
compensation policies, procedures, decisions or practices, or in
any other policy, procedure, decision or practice that plaintiffs
are or may be challenging," the company's lawyers wrote.

Kate Mueting -- kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- a partner with
Sanford Heisler Sharp, said the number of women who have signed
onto the case is very high for such cases, indicating the
widespread problem at the company. She said the case could have
ripple effects on the industry.


KRAFT FOODS: Morales Asks Recertification of Suit; Submits Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled CLAUDIA MORALES and MOCHA
GUNARATNA, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-04387-JAK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), ask the
Court to recertify the case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs submit a brief in support of recertification under
Rule 23(b)(2), pursuant to the Court's order dated June 9, 2017.

On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiffs brought suit against Kraft to halt
an allegedly obvious food mislabeling practice, namely, the
deceptive labeling of Kraft Natural Cheese Fat Free Shredded
Cheddar (the "Product") as a "natural cheese" when in fact it is
processed with annatto and titanium dioxide.

A copy of the Brief is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n2f9fKha

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


MAZOR ROBOTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of persons and
entities that acquired Mazor Robotics, Ltd. ("Mazor" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MZOR) securities between November 8, 2016 and
June 8, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than sixty days from the date of this notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-
9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss
this matter.

On June 8, 2017, the Company disclosed that in May 2017, the
Israeli Securities Authority (the "ISA") conducted a search at the
offices of Mazor and questioned certain officers in connection
with an investigation held by the ISA.

On this news, the Company's American Depository Share ("ADS" or
"share") price fell $3.70 per share, or 9.9%, to close at $33.67
per share on June 8, 2017. The next day, the share price continued
to decline, falling another $3.08 per share, or 9.1%, to close at
$30.59 per share on June 9, 2017.

The complaint filed in this class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
that the Company was engaged in conduct that subjected it to ISA
investigation; (2) that, as such the Company was exposed to
potential liability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Mazor's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased shares of Mazor during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than sixty days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff in this
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the Class you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action lawsuit. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to -- shareholders@glancylaw.com -- or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com [GN]


MIDLAND FUNDING: Placeholder Motion Filed in "Janetos" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARY T. JANETOS, on behalf of plaintiff
and the class members described below, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and ENCORE CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04490 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) to whom a
   letter was sent on behalf of defendants to collect a debt, (c)
   which debt was a credit card where the last payment had been
   made more than 5 years prior to the letter, (d) which letter
   offered a settlement or a payment plan, and (e) did not state
   that any payment may restart the statute of limitations, (f)
   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.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=31tdvofX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          Corey J. Varma, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS,
          LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark St, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


MORTON SALT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roberts" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Roberts, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Morton Salt, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01221 (N.D. Ohio,
June 11, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Morton Salt, Inc. is a producer of salt for grocery, water
softening, ice control, agricultural and industrial uses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
              mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Shon Dawkins' Death
--------------------------------------------------------
BOBBIE DAWKINS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shon
D. Dawkins, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GARDNER-WEBB UNIVERSITY, a North Carolina non-profit
corporation, SOUTH ATLANTIC CONFERENCE, and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01882-TWP-MJD
(S.D. Ind., June 8, 2017), demands jury trial for the alleged
wrongful death of Shon Dawkins, and to obtain redress for him and
all other persons who were injured, incapacitated, or died as a
result of Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety
of generations of Gardner-Webb student-athletes.

Plaintiff played college football at Gardner-Webb, where he was a
defensive back from 1995 to 1999.

Defendant NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     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: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

        - and -

     Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Sol Weiss, Esq.
     Larry Coben, Esq.
     David Senoff, Esq.
     ANAPOL WEISS
     One Logan Square
     130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215.735.2098
     Fax: 215.875.7701
     E-mail: sweiss@anapolweiss.com
             lcoben@anapolweiss.com
             dsenoff@anapolweiss.com


NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Deceptive Price Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Hedrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. New York & Company, Inc., New York & Company Stores,
Inc., and Does 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01153-AJB-JMA
(S.D. Cal., June 9, 2017), arises from the Defendants' false and
misleading advertisement of regular "OUR PRICE" prices, and
corresponding phantom "% Off" savings on clothing, accessories,
and fashion apparel sold in their New York & Company outlet
stores.

The Defendants operate New York & Company retail stores, outlet
stores, as well as the nyandcompany.com website, and advertise,
market, distribute, and sell clothing and clothing accessories in
California and throughout the United States. Defendants maintain
47 outlet stores in the State of California and over 300 outlet
stores nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              glynch@carlsonlynch.com


NIKITA LEVY: Settlement Checks Issued by Batches
------------------------------------------------
Alison Knezevich, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports hundreds
of former patients of Johns Hopkins gynecologist Dr. Nikita Levy
have called the funds administrator in a $190 million settlement
with questions about when their checks will arrive.

Although details announced previously by the claims adjudicator
indicated settlement checks would be mailed by June 2, attorney
David M. Higgins, Esq. -- dhiggins@settlementlaw.com -- of Higgins
Settlement Law, the administrator, said the plan was always to
mail them out in batches.

As of June 9, about 6,700 checks have been mailed out, Higgins
said. More than 8,000 former patients are part of the class-action
settlement with Johns Hopkins.

Levy, who was accused of secretly taping women during exams,
worked for Hopkins for 25 years. After police began investigating
the allegations, the 54-year-old killed himself in 2013.
Investigators said they discovered he amassed a collection of more
than 1,200 videos and images.

As part of the settlement, women were interviewed and placed into
four categories, depending on the effects they suffered. The final
amounts due to the women were approved by a judge last month.

Settlements checks to be mailed in Dr. Nikita Levy case
Their awards range from just under $1,900 to nearly $28,000. More
than half the women -- about 4,700 -- fall into the category that
will receive about $21,500 each.

Before a check can be issued, a search must be conducted to
determine whether a claimant owes money to Medicare or Medicaid
for treatment associated with the Levy case, according to the
court-approved website set up for members of the class action.
Those with such reimbursement obligations should receive a letter
stating the next steps.

"The lien search and lien resolution is required by the federal
government, and the trust fund administrator is working diligently
and expeditiously to resolve any lien issues," the website states.

Settlements checks to be mailed in Dr. Nikita Levy case
After several years of legal work, settlement checks are set to be
mailed to more than 8,000 former patients of Dr. Nikita Levy, the
Johns Hopkins gynecologist accused of secretly photographing and
filming women during pelvic exams. (Ulysses Mu§oz / Baltimore Sun)
Higgins said checks also may take longer for those have borrowed
money against their settlements, changed their names or otherwise
have more complicated circumstances than others.

One woman said her frustrations continued even after receiving her
settlement check in the mail. Former Levy patient Sonia Brown said
employees at a Wells Fargo branch said they couldn't deposit the
funds.

She went to another branch of the same bank, and $400 of the check
was initially available, she said. But the next day, the money was
not available. She later received an electronic notice saying the
funds wouldn't be available until June 14. Brown said she is a
longtime customer of Wells Fargo.

Higgins said he has received other complaints from Wells Fargo
customers and that he complained to the bank.

Del Galloway, a Wells Fargo spokesman, said it was difficult to
comment on individual cases but that it is "standard operating
procedure" to hold check funds in certain circumstances.

Brown said she went into counseling after the allegations against
the doctor -- who delivered her children -- surfaced. She was
shocked, she said.

"I have to say, when all of this came out, I went through a lot,"
Brown said. [GN]


ON HALF SHELL: "Grennnan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Grennnan, for herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. On Half Shell, Inc. a/k/a Aqua Grill, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00659-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount in liquidated
damages, and to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Half Shell, Inc. owns and operates Aqua Grill restaurant in St.
John's County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


PACCAR INC: Class Action Claims Filed Against DAF
-------------------------------------------------
PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that claims and a petition to certify a
claim as a class action have been filed against DAF and other
truck manufacturers.

In the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a charge of
EUR850.0 million ($942.6 million) in connection with an
investigation by the European Commission of all major European
truck manufacturers, including DAF Trucks N.V., its subsidiary DAF
Trucks Deutschland GmbH (collectively, "DAF") and the Company as
their parent. On July 19, 2016, the EC reached a settlement with
DAF and the Company under which the EC imposed a fine of EUR752.7
million ($833.0 million) for infringement of European Union
competition rules. As a result of the settlement, the Company
reversed, in the second quarter of 2016, EUR97.3 million ($109.6
million) of the previously recorded charge. DAF paid the fine in
August 2016.

Following the EC settlement, claims and a petition to certify a
claim as a class action have been filed against DAF and other
truck manufacturers. Others may bring EC-related claims against
the Company or its subsidiaries.

While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, such
claims will likely take a significant period of time to resolve,
and it is not possible to estimate a range of potential loss. An
adverse outcome of such proceedings could have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations.

PACCAR is a global technology company whose Truck segment includes
the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium- and
heavy-duty commercial trucks.


PANERA BREAD: Faces "Berg" Securities Lawsuit Over JAB Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, RONALD M. SHAICH,
WILLIAM W. MORETON, DOMENIC COLASACCO, DIANE HESSAN, FRED FOULKES,
LARRY FRANKLIN, THOMAS E. LYNCH, MARK STOEVER, JAMES WHITE, RYE
PARENT, CORP., RYE MERGER SUB, INC., and JAB HOLDINGS B.V.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01631 (E.D. Mo., June 8, 2017),
alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act by filing a Proxy Statement that omits material information
with respect to a proposed transaction announced on April 5, 2017,
pursuant to which Panera Bread Company will be acquired by JAB
Holdings B.V., Rye Parent, Corp., and Rye
Merger Sub, Inc.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Panera will receive $315.00 per share in cash.

The case alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding Panera's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in support of its so-called fairness
opinion; potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers
and directors; and potential conflicts of interest of Morgan
Stanley.

Panera Bread Company is an operator within the bakery-cafe
category.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
     CAREY DANIS & LOWE
     8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: (314) 725-7700
     Fax: (314) 721-0905
     Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Fax: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com


PANERA BREAD: Faces "Phillips" Lawsuit Over JAB Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE PHILLIPS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, RONALD M.
SHAICH, WILLIAM W. MORETON, DOMENIC COLASACCO, DIANE HESSAN, FRED
FOULKES, LARRY FRANKLIN, THOMAS E. LYNCH, MARK STOEVER, and JAMES
WHITE Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00697-UNA (D. Del., June 7,
2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act
by filing a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement on a Schedule 14A in connection with the proposed merger
between Panera and JAB Holdings B.V.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; and (ii) the valuation analysis performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in support
of its fairness opinion, says the complaint.

The special meeting of Panera shareholders to vote on the Proposed
Merger is scheduled for July 11, 2017.  Pursuant to the
transaction, the Company's shareholders stand to receive $315.00
in cash for each share of Panera stock they own.

The Defendant operated over 2,000 owned and franchise-operated
bakery-cafe locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PENSKE LOGISTICS: $500K Settlement in "Myers" Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHANNON NANGLE and TIMOTHY MYERS, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:11-CV-00807-CAB-(BLM) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement
and award of attorneys' fees, costs and class representative
enhancement awards.

The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of San Diego County on Feb. 28, 2011, alleging
various wage and hour violations of California's Labor Code and
its Unfair Competition Law.  They removed the case to this Court
on April 18, 2011.

On Nov. 30, 2016, after nearly six years in which the litigation
was pending, the parties notified the Court that they had reached
a settlement of the remaining certified claims.  The Plaintiffs
filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement, which is memorialized in a written settlement
agreement dated Jan. 23, 2017.

The agreement provides for settlement of claims for unpaid
overtime and non-compliant meal periods under the California Labor
Code and Unfair Competition Law and derivative claims for wage
statement and waiting time penalties.  It authorizes: (i) a class
settlement in the amount of $500,000; (ii) an average class member
award of approximately $500 from the Net Settlement amount; (iii)
a class representative award of $10,000 per person; (iv) $12,500
in class administrator fees; and (v) civil penalties of $7,500 to
be paid to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency.
Additionally, $125,000 in attorneys' fees and $13,292 in costs is
being requested.

On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement.  The Court granted the
motion and preliminarily approved the settlement on Feb. 06, 2017.
The preliminary approval order set a final approval hearing for
May 22, 2017.  The final approval hearing took place as scheduled.
Counsel for both parties attended.  No class members filed
objections to the settlement, and no class members attended the
hearing.  However, six class members requested exclusion from the
settlement.

The Court granted (i) final approval of the proposed settlement;
(ii) in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs and
class representative payments; (iii) the Class Counsel $75,000 in
attorneys' fees and $13,292.07 in costs from the common fund; (iv)
the class representative enhancement awards of $2,000 each to
Plaintiffs Nangle and Myers to be paid from the common fund; (v)
$7,500 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency from the common fund as penalties; and (vi)
$15,000 in settlement administration costs to be paid from the
common fund to CPT Group, Inc..

The Class members who asked to opt out of the settlement are
excluded from the class.  The Court retains continuing
jurisdiction over this settlement solely for the purposes of
enforcing the agreement, addressing settlement administration
matters, and addressing such post-judgment matters as may be
appropriate under Court rules and applicable law.  The Clerk of
the Court will close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/qhHd4S from Leagle.com.

Shannon Nangle, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Shannon Nangle, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Tim Myers, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D. Singer, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Penske Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Butcher
-- ABUTCHER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, PC, pro hac vice, Christopher C. McNatt --
CMCNATT@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary LLP, Elizabeth Ashley Paynter -- APAYNTER@SCOPELITIS.COM --
Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, James
H. Hanson -- JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, pro hac vice, R. Jay Taylor, Jr. --
JTAYLOR@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, PC, pro hac vice & Adam Carl Smedstad --
ASMEDSTAD@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &
Feary, P.C.


PENSKE LOGISTICS: $750K Settlement in "Dilts" Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICKEY LEE DILTS, RAY RIOS, and DONNY
DUSHAJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO.,
L.P., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 125, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:08-CV-00318-CAB-(BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement; and granted in part
their motion for attorneys' fees, costs and class representative
enhancement awards.

The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of San Diego County on Jan. 17, 2008, alleging
various wage and hour violations of California's Labor Code and
its Unfair Competition Law.  The Defendants removed the case to
this Court on Jan. 25, 2008.

On Nov. 20, 2016, after nearly nine years of litigation, including
an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties notified the Court
that they had reached a settlement of the remaining certified
claims.  The Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, which is memorialized in
a written settlement agreement dated Jan. 23, 2017.

The agreement provides for settlement of claims for meal periods
under the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law and
derivative claims for wage statement and waiting time penalties.
It authorizes: (i) a class settlement in the amount of $750,000;
(ii) an average class member award of approximately $950 from the
Net Settlement amount; (iii) a class representative award of
$15,000 per person; and (iv) $12,500 in class administrator fees.
Additionally, $225,000 in attorneys' fees and $135,000 in costs is
being requested.  The settlement defines the class as all persons
employed by Penske in California facilities as driver/installers
or helpers/installers assigned to the Whirlpool Account at any
time during the period from Jan. 17, 2004 through Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement.  The Court granted the
motion and preliminarily approved the settlement on Feb. 6, 2017.
The preliminary approval order set a final approval hearing for
May 22, 2017.  The final approval hearing took place as scheduled.
Counsel for both parties attended.  No class members filed
objections to the settlement, and no class members attended the
hearing.  However, one class member requested exclusion from the
settlement.

Judge Bencivengo granted (i) final approval of the proposed
settlement; (ii) in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'
fees, costs and class representative payments; (iii) the Class
Counsel $225,000 in attorneys' fees and $71,419.63 in costs from
the common fund; (iv) the class representative enhancement awards
of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Dilts, Rios and Dushaj to be paid
from the common fund; and (v) $12,500 in settlement administration
costs to be paid from the common fund to CPT Group, Inc.

The Class member who asked to opt out of the settlement is
excluded from the class.  The Court retains continuing
jurisdiction over this settlement solely for the purposes of
enforcing the agreement, addressing settlement administration
matters, and addressing such post-judgment matters as may be
appropriate under Court rules and applicable law.  The Clerk of
the Court will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/id62jN from Leagle.com.

Mickey Lee Dilts, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Mickey Lee Dilts, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Singer --
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Ray Rios, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D. Singer, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Donny Dushaj, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D. Singer, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Penske Logistics LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher C.
McNatt, Jr. -- CMCNATT@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Adam Carl Smedstad,
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., James H. Hanson -
- JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary, pro hac vice & R. Jay Taylor, Jr. -- JTAYLOR@SCOPELITIS.COM
-- Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, PC, pro hac vice.

Penske Truck Leasing Co LP, Defendant, represented by Christopher
C. McNatt, Jr., Adam Carl Smedstad, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light,
Hanson & Feary, P.C., James H. Hanson, Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, pro hac vice & R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Scopelitis,
Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, PC, pro hac vice.


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Ct. OKs "Brown" Suit Deal; Final Hrng Oct. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria entered an order in the lawsuit styled
DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA LABUSZEWSKI, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
3:16-cv-05272-VC (N.D. Cal.):

   (1) preliminarily approving proposed settlement;

   (2) conditionally certifying this settlement class:

       All current and former hourly advice nurses who work or
       have worked for TPMG at one or more of its call centers
       located in Sacramento, San Jose or Vallejo, California, at
       any time from September 14, 2012, through the date on
       which the Court grants preliminary approval of the
       Settlement, excluding those individuals who already have
       resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by
       settlement or adjudication;

   (3) appointing class representatives (Debra Brown, Sandra
       Morton and Barbara Labuszewski), class counsel (Kevin J.
       Stoops, Esq., Jason J. Thompson, Esq., and Jesse L. Young,
       Esq., of Sommers Schwartz, P.C., and Jahan C. Sagafi,
       Esq.), and settlement administrator (Simpluris, Inc.);

   (4) approving forms of notice to class of settlement, class
       member settlement information sheet, and election not to
       participate in settlement; and

   (5) setting hearing for final approval of settlement on
       October 5, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3f0bFlLO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Wang, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com


PHILLIPS CONCRETE: Faces "Marin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Marin, individually on behalf of all those similarly situated
v. Phillips Concrete Construction, Inc. and George W. Phillips,
III, Case No. 4:17-cv-01767 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
117 Oates Road, Houston, Texas 77013. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

        - and -

      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motion to Dismiss Broiler Chickens Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants' motion
to dismiss by purchasers of broiler chickens remains pending.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits were brought against
Pilgrim's and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The
complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble
damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce
output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of
January 2008 to the present.

Plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one
on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct
groups of indirect purchasers. Defendants (including the Company)
moved to dismiss all complaints on January 27, 2017, which
Plaintiffs opposed on March 15, 2017. Reply briefs were due on
April 12, 2017.

The Company believes "we have strong defenses in response to
plaintiffs' allegations and intend to contest the action
vigorously."

Prilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and
Puerto Rico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Motion to Dismiss "Hogan" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
A Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint (with
Incorporated Memorandum of Law) was filed on June 12 by Defendants
William W. Lovette, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Fabio Sandri in
the case, Hogan v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation et al., Case No.
16-cv-02611 (D. Colo.).  Judge R Brooke Jackson presides over the
case.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on October 10,
2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and putative
class of persons who purchased shares of Pilgrim's common stock
between February 21, 2014 and October 4, 2016, filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company and its named executive officers. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by its failure to disclose that (i) Pilgrim's
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) the Company's conduct constituted a
violation of federal antitrust laws, (iii) Pilgrim's revenues
during the class period were the result of illegal conduct and
(iv) the Company lacked effective internal control over financial
reporting, as well as stating that Pilgrim's industry was
anticompetitive.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another shareholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. Fuller has not yet filed a
consolidated amended complaint, and the Court has not set a
briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss.

Prilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and
Puerto Rico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Class Action in Oklahoma Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a class action
lawsuit in Eastern District of Oklahoma remains pending.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's and 4 other
producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among
other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower
services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege
violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act
and seek, among other relief, treble damages. Answers or responses
to the complaint were due on April 28, 2017. The Company believes
they have strong defenses in response to plaintiffs' allegations
and intend to contest these actions vigorously.

Prilgrim's Pride is one of the largest chicken producers in the
world, with operations in the United States ("U.S."), Mexico and
Puerto Rico.


PRECOR INC: Bid to Review "Mednick" Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harry D. Leineweber of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's request to reconsider its order granting class
certification in the case captioned GARY MEDNICK and STEVEN BAYER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PRECOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 14 C 3624 Consolidated Action (N.D. Ill.).

In March 2017, the Court certified as a class Plaintiffs' consumer
fraud action.  The certification was limited since the Court
allowed the case proceed as a class only for the purpose of
determining liability and reserved issues related to damages to
individual hearings.  The ruling nonetheless moved the case
forward as it permits the Plaintiffs to attempt to prove the
merits of their allegation that Precor had deceptively marketed
and sold treadmills incorporating "touch sensors," a heart rate
monitoring technology, that Precor knew did not accurately measure
its users' heart rates.

In their original motion for class certification, they had sought
to certify both a nationwide class to pursue a federal warranty
claim and a multi-state class to recover under the consumer
protection laws of 10 different states.  They defined as class
members all those who bought Precor's exercise equipment
containing the touch sensor technology, or 20 models of
treadmills, elliptical machines, and stationary bikes in all.  The
Court refused to certify such a broad class.

Having failed to obtain class certification on their first try,
the Plaintiffs acted to narrow the scope of their case.  Thus, on
the renewed motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs'
proposed class went from being nationwide to covering just five
states.  The proposed class products decreased from 20 models of
treadmills, ellipticals, and stationary bikes to nine models of
treadmills. The Court found that this narrow class satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23.  It concluded that when the
representations were confined to those graphics found on the
machines themselves and any omissions Precor failed to make to the
class, Plaintiffs could carry their burden to show proximate
causation with classwide proof.

The Court also examined the issue of damages.  It decided that the
class members' damages should be reserved to individual hearings.
Nonetheless, mindful of what the Supreme Court said in Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, the Court scrutinized the Plaintiffs' damages
model.  Although it understood that the model that the Plaintiffs
submitted calculated a full refund as a measure of the class
members' damages, the Court reasoned that this model could readily
be modified to deliver a partial refund number instead.  The Court
thus found that Comcast did not prevent the class from being
certified.  Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the class for the purpose of determining liability.

Precor asked the Court to reconsider, asserting that the Court
made multiple manifest errors of law.  The Court found no such
error upon reexamining its opinion and so denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/SZAoEB from Leagle.com.

Gary Mednick, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll, Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Gary Mednick, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle Alan Shamberg --
shamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Richard
R. Gordon, Gordon Law Offices, Ltd., Danielle Y. Alvarez, Lite
Depalma Greenberg, LLC & Ismael Tariq Salam --
isalam@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Precor Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R. Levinson --
mlevinson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jeffery A. Key, Key &
Associates, Louis S. Chronowski, Jr. -- lchronowski@seyfarth.com -
- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & Michael Dale Wexler -- mwexler@seyfarth.com
-- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Steven Bayer, Movant, represented by Richard Lane Miller, II --
rmiller@siprut.com -- Siprut, PC, Ismael Tariq Salam, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC, Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut PC, Matthew D. Savin,
Siprut Pc & Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Class Certification in "Belfiore" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Procter & Gamble Company filed an appeal from the
District Court's memorandum & order certifying class actions,
dated March 27, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Belfiore v. Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 14-cv-4090, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on the Hon.
Jack B. Weinstein entered a memorandum & order certifying six
class actions, including the Belfiore action.  The certified class
consists of: "All persons and entities who purchased Charmin
Freshmates in the State of New York between May 23, 2011 and March
1, 2017."

The appellate case is captioned as Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 17-1861, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Anthony Belfiore, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Lester L. Levy, 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

Defendant-Appellant Procter & Gamble Company is represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4715
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Seeks Review of Ruling in AA Suncoast Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Progressive American Insurance Company, The Progressive
Corporation (PGR) and Progressive Select Insurance Company filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled AA SUNCOAST
CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., PALM HARBOR-WEST CHASE MEDICAL GROUP,
P.A., d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine Specialists, and SPINAL CORRECTION
CENTERS, INC., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE
SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, Case
No. 8:15-cv-02543-RAL-MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Progressive American Insurance,
et al. v. AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A., et al., Case No.
17-90012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 5,
2017, the Hon. Richard A. Lazzara granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit.

"Having painstakingly examined why the Class is certifiable based
on the absence of the need to make individualized assessments, the
Court refrains from certifying the subclass seeking damages which
to some degree would require such management," according to the
order.

These Classes are certified:

   A. All Qualified Providers who: (i) received an assignment
      of benefits from a Claimant under a Progressive PIP policy,
      (ii) provided initial or follow up medical services to a
      Claimant after January 1, 2013, and (iii) were given notice
      by Progressive that available PIP benefits were reduced to
      $2,500 because of a Negative EMC Determination that
      Progressive obtained from a Non-treating Provider; and

   B. All Claimants who were notified that Progressive reduced
      available PIP benefits to $2,500 because of a Negative EMC
      Determination Progressive obtained from a Non-treating
      Provider.

      The term "Qualified Provider" is a provider described by
      section 627.736(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes.
      "Progressive" means Progressive Select Insurance Company
      and Progressive American Insurance Company. "Claimant" is
      an injured person who received medical services for
      injuries sustained in an accident within 14 days from a
      Qualified Provider. "Non-treating Provider" means a person
      or entity that did not provide initial or follow-up
      treatment as defined by section 627.736(1)(a)1. or 2. to a
      Claimant.  "Negative EMC Determination" is a determination
      that a Claimant did not have an Emergency Medical
      Condition.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
(THE) are represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Nancy A. Copperthwaite, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          3 Brickell City Ctr.
          98 SE 7th St., Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  Nancy.Copperthwaite@akerman.com

               - and -

          Margaret Diane Mathews, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 209-5031
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
          E-mail: margaret.mathews@akerman.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents AA SUNCOAST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; PALM HARBOR-
WEST CHASE MEDICAL GROUP, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, d.b.a. Tampa Bay Spine Specialists; and SPINAL
CORRECTION CENTERS, INC., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Lee, Esq.
          HARMON WOODS PARKER & ABRUNZO, PA
          110 N 11th St., 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222-3600

               - and -

          Lauren A. Meksraitis-Elliott, Esq.
          MICHAEL J. MEKSRAITIS, CHARTERED
          102 S Westland Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33606-1742
          Telephone: (813) 250-0885
          E-mail: lmeksraitis-elliott@verizon.net

               - and -

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENLAW
          3900 1st St. N, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328


ROCHE HOLDING: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Roche Holding AG.
("Roche" or the "Company") (OTCQX: RHHBY) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Roche securities
between March 2, 2017, and June 5, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/rhhby.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the combination of Perieta and Herceptin is
only marginally more effective than Herceptin alone in preventing
breast cancer; and (2) consequently, Defendants' statements
regarding Roche's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/rhhby or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Roche you have until August 7, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


RUBIANO INC: Faces "Mays" Lawsuit Over Alleged Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MAYS and ALESSANDRA MALMQUIST individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUBIANO, INC. and
SHARON RUBIANO, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00048-JVB-JEM (N.D.
Ind., June 7, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified
Plaintiffs as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, at
all times in which they worked as Entertainers at Danzers. AS a
result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, and all other members
of the proposed class, the minimum wage that they were entitled to
under the FLSA. In addition, Defendants required Entertainers to
pay a percentage of the tips they received to Defendants and to
employees who do not customarily receive tips.

Sharon Rubiano is an owner of Danzers. Defendants are in the
business of providing adult entertainment, food, and alcoholic
beverages to customers.  To provide such adult entertainment to
their customers, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other
employees to dance at their business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Dutkanych III, Esq.
     BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
     411 Main Street
     Evansville, IN 47708
     Phone: (812) 424-1000
     Fax: (812) 424-1005
     Email: ad@bdlegal.com


SAHOTA FAMILY: Class Action Suit Stalled Over Venue Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Stuek, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit against a family that runs several
run-down single-room hotels in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside is
stalled over a dispute about whether the court even has the
jurisdiction to hear the case.

The delay in the lawsuit against the Sahota family disappointed
housing advocates, who are also watching developments at another
Sahota-owned hotel where residents are facing eviction.  Both
cases focus on questions of maintenance, oversight and regulation
in the single-room hotels that are considered the housing of last
resort for Vancouver's poorest residents.

"We can't wait," Wendy Pedersen, a long-time housing and community
activist, said in the courthouse after the hearing, which took
place on June 8 afternoon.

"It's disappointing it's going to take more time."

The procedural step in the proposed class action, which was heard
in the B.C. Court of Appeal on June 8, happened days before
tenants at the Balmoral Hotel face eviction. The City of Vancouver
recently found that building unsafe and have required tenants to
vacate by June 12.

The lawsuit was filed by Jack Gates, who lives in the Regent
Hotel. Mr. Gates's lawsuit alleges the Sahotas routinely ignore
health and safety concerns at the Regent, including a rat
infestation and a chronically broken elevator. He is seeking
damages as well as an injunction that would prevent the owners
from evicting any tenants while the issues in the building are
repaired.

The family's lawyer has argued the case should be heard by the
province's Residential Tenancy Branch, which they argue is
designed to address landlord-tenant disputes and warned of
potential "forum shopping" if the case were allowed to go ahead. A
B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled in January that the court had
jurisdiction and the case could go ahead, but the Sahotas
appealed.

The Sahota family's lawyer, Michael Katzalay, told the court on
June 8 that the tenancy branch is the right venue for the case and
he warned of "forum shopping" if the case were allowed to go ahead
in a courtroom.

"We are dealing at this point with a potential floodgates issue,"
Mr. Katzalay said.

The Residential Tenancy Act provides for disputes to be heard by
the B.C. Supreme Court if the amount of money in dispute is
greater than the limit set out in Small Claims Court -- currently
$25,000 -- or if the dispute is linked substantially to a matter
before the court.

Jason Gratl, who is representing Mr. Gates, argued both those
thresholds have been met, while Mr. Katzalay maintained they had
not.

Allowing this case to go before the courts would not affect the
vast majority of tenant disputes that involve relatively minor
matters such as damage deposits, Mr. Gratl said, adding that the
$25,000 threshold in the act recognizes that some matters require
the scrutiny and procedural protection provided by the courts.

The three-judge panel reserved judgment.

In court, Mr. Katzalay argued that the Residential Tenancy Act
provides for penalties for landlords that fail to maintain or
repair buildings.

But housing advocates such as Ms. Pedersen, who has helped tenants
pursue legal action, says neither the tenancy branch nor the city
have done enough to ensure landlords keep buildings in decent
repair. Now, there are fears that the more than 100 tenants of the
Balmoral Hotel could join the city's homeless population. The city
has said it is working with tenants and advocacy groups to help
people find housing before the June 12 deadline.

A tenant of the Balmoral Hotel has also launched a proposed class-
action. [GN]


SANTA CLARA, CA: Court Narrows Certified Class in "Estorga" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action captioned ROBERT ESTORGA v.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Case No. 5:16-cv-
02668-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Robert Estorga alleges that VTA fails to compensate bus drivers at
an overtime rate when they accrue travel time by working in excess
of 40 hours in a week.  VTA claims that this suit is merely a
collateral attack on the judgment entered in a separate suit, Rai
v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Case No. 12-cv-
04344-PSG ("Rai").

Judge Freeman grants in part Mr. Estorga's motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action as to persons, who are or have
been employed by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority
and perform or performed services as a bus operator, who are not
members of Rai settlement class.  Such persons include VTA bus
operators, who opted out of the Rai settlement class, as well as
bus operators, who began their employment with the VTA after the
opt-out request deadline in the Rai case.

The Court denies in part Mr. Estorga's motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action as to persons, who were members
of the Rai settlement class.  The Court further orders the parties
to meet and confer to modify the proposed notice and consent form
consistent with the Court's ruling.  An agreed-upon notice and
consent form must be submitted to the Court for approval no later
than June 30, 2017.  After submission of an agreed-upon notice and
consent form, VTA will produce a class list to Mr. Estorga's
counsel within 10 days of that submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gd5B7ESe


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: First Circuit Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the "Corban" class
action appeal in the First Circuit remains pending.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, asserted violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
against the Company, and Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, and Ed
Kaye ("Individual Defendants," and collectively with the Company,
the "Corban Defendants"), and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs
alleged that the Corban Defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of July 24, 2013 through November 12, 2013, regarding a data set
for a Phase 2b study of eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA
accepting the Company's new drug application for eteplirsen for
review based on that data set. Plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages and fees.

On August 18, 2014, the Corban Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2015.  Plaintiffs
subsequently sought leave to file a second amended complaint,
which the Corban Defendants opposed.  On September 2, 2015, the
Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as futile.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 2015, seeking
review of the Court's March 31, 2015 order dismissing the case and
the Court's September 2, 2015 order denying leave to amend.

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed in the district court a
motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(2), arguing that the FDA Briefing Document
published on or about January 15, 2016, was material and would
have changed the Court's ruling.

On February 26, 2016, the First Circuit stayed the appeal pending
the district court's ruling on the 60(b)(2) motion.  Defendants
opposed the 60(b)(2) motion, and on April 21, 2016, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment.  On May 19,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the April 21,
2016 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

On May 20, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, and
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's April 21, 2016
denial of their 60(b)(2) motion and May 20, 2016 denial of their
59(e) motion.  On June 13, 2016, the First Circuit granted
Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the two appeals.  Oral argument
took place on March 7, 2017. A decision has not yet been issued by
the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss cannot be made at this time.

Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery and development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics
for the treatment of rare neuromuscular diseases.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Kader" Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal in the
class action lawsuit by William Kader remains pending.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 styled William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh
Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318).

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris
Garabedian and Sandy Mahatme ("Individual Defendants," and
collectively with the Company, the "Kader Defendants"), and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Kader
Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during
the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27,
2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for
submission of an NDA for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA
accepting the NDA based on that data. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages and fees. The Kader Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on May 11, 2015.

On April 5, 2016, following oral argument on March 29, 2016, the
Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On April 8, 2016,
Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, which Defendants opposed.

On January 6, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend and dismissed the case.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on February 3, 2017.

A briefing schedule was set on March 13, 2017. Appellants' brief
was filed April 24, 2017. Appellee's brief was due May 24, 2017.
An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made
at this time.

Sarepta is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery and development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics
for the treatment of rare neuromuscular diseases.


SENTINEL OFFENDER: July 5 Hearing on "Luse" Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the case, LUSE V. SENTINEL
OFFENDER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-CV-30-RWS (N.D. Ga.), which
is filed on behalf of many people who were placed on probation by
the White County Probate Court and were required to submit to and
pay for drug testing or drug screening that was not specifically
ordered in writing by the White County Probate Court, or by any
other court, as a condition of probation.

A final fairness hearing will be held by the Honorable Richard W.
Story at 10:00 a.m. on July 5, 2017, at the United States
Courthouse & Federal Building, 121 Spring Street SE, Room 201,
Gainesville, GA 30501-3789.  The purpose of the hearing is for the
Court to determine (1) whether the lawsuit should be finally
certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement; (2)
whether the Agreement should be finally approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and (3) whether any properly filed
objections are valid.

The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The lawsuit was
brought by Rita Sanders Luse and Marianne Ligocki, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated people ("the Class"), against
Sentinel Offender Services, LLC ("Sentinel"), and Sentinel
probation officer Stacy McDowell-Black. The Representative
Plaintiffs allege that Sentinel and McDowell-Black unlawfully
required probationers placed on probation by the White County
Probate Court for misdemeanors and traffic offenses to submit to
drug screening that had not been specifically ordered by the White
County Probate Court.

Defendants Sentinel and Stacy McDowell-Black deny all claims made
by the Representative Plaintiffs and deny any wrongdoing or
liability to the Representative Plaintiffs or any other members of
the proposed Class. Defendants further contend that the
Representative Plaintiffs' claims have no merit, that Defendants
have valid defenses to the Representative Plaintiffs' claims, and
that Defendants would prevail in the lawsuit if it were to
proceed.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Representative Plaintiffs and the
Defendants participated in arm's-length settlement discussions
that were facilitated by a neutral mediator. As a result of those
negotiations, a proposed settlement has been reached on the
Representative Plaintiffs' claims as well as the claims of the
proposed Class. The settlement requires approval by the Court.

There has been no finding by the Court that Defendants violated
any law in their conduct toward the Representative Plaintiffs or
other members of the Class. The parties arrived at this settlement
before any of the claims asserted by the Representative Plaintiffs
were tried by the Court.

Similarly, the Court has not decided whether any of the defenses
asserted by the Defendants are valid.

The Agreement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and, if
it is finally approved by the Court, the Agreement will fully and
finally resolve all claims asserted by the Representative
Plaintiffs against Defendants, on behalf of themselves and anyone
who is part of the Class.

The parties have agreed and the Court has ordered that the lawsuit
may be maintained as a class action for settlement purposes,
subject to final and permanent approval at the conclusion of the
settlement process. If this proposed settlement is not approved or
is withdrawn at any time and for any reason, the parties have
agreed that the lawsuit will return to the same status as before
the parties entered into the Agreement. That means that if the
settlement fails the parties will go forward with further court
proceedings and bear the risk of having the case dismissed or
losing the case on the merits.

The Class is represented by these attorneys, who are employed by
the Southern Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit law office:

     Sarah Geraghty
     Gerald Weber
     Ryan Primerano
     SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
     83 Poplar Street NW
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 688-1202

Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, and Stacy McDowell-Black are
represented by:

     Michael D. St. Amand
     Harvey S. Gray GRAY
     RUST, ST. AMAND, MOFFETT & BRIESKE, LLP
     1700 Atlanta Plaza
     950 East Paces Ferry Road
     Atlanta, GA 30326

The Court has certified, for settlement purposes, a Class
consisting of each individual who meets the following
requirements:

     (1) The person was sentenced to probation by the Probate
Court of White County, Georgia;

     (2) The person's sentencing order did not specifically
authorize drug testing;

     (3) The person was subjected to drug testing by Defendants on
or after February 17, 2012; and

     (4) The person was not under a written order by another court
specifically requiring the person to submit to drug testing by
Defendants.

The settlement agreement provides that Sentinel will allocate
$80,000 to a Class Fund, which will be distributed to Class
Members as follows:

     1. Each responding Class Member will be entitled to a
Restitution Amount for any fees paid for any drug testing
conducted on or after February 17, 2012, with interest of 7
percent per year calculated from the date of payment; and

     2. Provided that the Class Fund is sufficient to reimburse
each responding Class Member for any fees paid, with interest,
each responding Class Member will be entitled to a Damages Amount
not to exceed $90 for each drug test conducted on or after
February 17, 2012.

In the event that the $80,000 Class Fund is insufficient to pay
the full Restitution Amount and full $90-per-test Damages Amount
to each responding Class Member, the Damages Amount paid to each
responding Class Member will be reduced proportionately across the
class so that the total payout to the Class Members does not
exceed $80,000.

In the event that the $80,000 Class Fund is sufficient to provide
the full Restitution Amount and full $90-per-test Damages Amount
to each responding Class Member, any remaining money in the Class
Fund will be returned to Sentinel after each responding Class
Member has been paid.

Class Counsel have prosecuted this litigation without receiving
attorney's fees, and have advanced all of the costs necessary to
investigate and litigate the case. The parties have agreed that
Class Counsel will receive attorney's fees and costs of $25,000 if
the Agreement is finally approved. The amount of attorney's fees
and expenses awarded to Class Counsel will not impact the amount
of money paid to members of the Class.

Representative Plaintiffs Marianne Ligocki and Rita Sanders Luse
will each be paid $7,500 as compensation for their services as
named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The amount paid to the
Representative Plaintiffs will not impact the amount of money paid
to the other members of the Class.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Class Members will release
Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, and Stacy McDowell-Black, and
their respective agents, officers, employees, officials, and
personal representatives from any and all claims, demands, suits,
or causes of action of any nature or description that concern the
imposition of unauthorized drug screening. The full text of this
release is contained in the Agreement.

As part of the Agreement, the parties have agreed to the entry of
an injunction ("the Consent Order") governing Defendants'
practices with respect to probation supervision. The Consent Order
will operate for the benefit of current and future people on
probation who are supervised by Defendants. The Consent Order will
not affect the amount of money paid to a Class Member.

Parties who qualify in the settlement will have these options:

     OPTION 1: Recover a refund of money that a party paid for
drug screening as well as a damages payment. To do so, the party
must complete and submit a form following the steps outlined
below.

     OPTION 2: "Opt out" of the settlement and the Class. If a
party opts out, he will not be entitled to a payment under this
settlement, but will retain the right to file his own lawsuit.

     OPTION 3: Remain a member of the Class and exercise the right
to object to the terms of the settlement.

     OPTION 4: Remain a member of the Class and exercise the right
to enter an appearance or intervene.

IF THE PARTY DOES NOTHING, HE WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT UNDER
THIS SETTLEMENT, AND WILL LOSE ANY RIGHT TO BRING HIS OWN CLAIM
FOR DAMAGES IN THE FUTURE.

Questions about the settlement must be addressed to:

     Southern Center for Human Rights
     83 Poplar Street NW
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 688-1202


SETERUS INC: Ciolino Moves for Certification of Classes Under HPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PATRICK CIOLINO, on behalf
of plaintiff and the class members described below v. SETERUS,
INC., formerly known as IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-09247 (N.D. Ill.), seeks certification of
these alternative classes:

   -- If the Court finds that the Homeowner's Protection Act
      allows the class members to recover a refund of overpaid
      PMI premiums with no damage cap:

      All borrowers in Homeowner's Protection Act qualified loans
      who overpaid PMI premiums due to the use of the modified
      property value to calculate a new PMI automatic termination
      date after the loan was modified on or after July 21, 2010;
      and

   -- If the Court finds that the HPA does not allow the class
      members to recover a refund of overpaid PMI premiums,
      and/or that any such recovery is subject to a $500,000 cap:

      All borrowers in Homeowner's Protection Act qualified loans
      who reside in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, who overpaid
      PMI premiums due to the use of the modified property value
      to calculate a new PMI automatic termination date after the
      loan was modified on or after July 21, 2010.

The Plaintiff further seeks appointment of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ti1GMNW2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  tgoodwin@edcombs.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ralph T. Wutscher, Esq.
          Greg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Mickey J. Lee, Esq.
          Eric Tsai, Esq.
          MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
          105 W. Madison St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 551-9320
          E-mail: rwutscher@mwbllp.com
                  gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com
                  mlee@mauricewutscher.com
                  etsai@mauricewutscher.com


SOUTHEAST LINEN: Faces "Hanlon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hanlon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southeast Linen Associates, Inc., d/b/a Blockbuster
Linen Service, Marlon Medlock, and Earl Delbridge, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02128-WSD (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Southeast Linen Associates, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing linens (e.g., napkins, tablecloths, aprons, kitchen
towels, kitchen mats, and embroidered chef wear) on a rental basis
to high-end commercial customers such as country clubs and fine
dining establishments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
      DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3171
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: "Quiruz" FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Archer-Daniels-Midland Company and Specialty
Commodities, Inc. removed the case captioned ANDREW QUIRUZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. SPECIALTY COMMODITIES, INC., a North Dakota
corporation, ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, a business entity
form unknown; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, (originally
Case No. 17-CV-309552) from the Superior Court of the State of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-03300.

The case alleges that Defendants routinely "conduct background
checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former
employees and use information from credit and background reports
in connection with their hiring process without complying with the
law" particularly the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

SPECIALTY COMMODITIES, INC. -- http://specialtycommodities.com/
-- imports, processes, and distributes specialty food
ingredients.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Max C. Fischer, Esq.
     Aimee G. Mackay, Esq.
     Abigail K. Woodruff, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Phone: (213) 896-6000
     Fax: (213) 896-6600
     E-mail: mfischer@sidley.com
             amackay@sidley.com
             awoodruff@sidley.com


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Ayeni and Hartsock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the cases, 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").

The Company said, "On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was
transferred to the United States District Court, District Court of
Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the
Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. These class action lawsuits
allege that we and certain of our executive officers made false or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about
our business and the prospects of approval for our 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."

"We believe that these claims are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims. The value of a potential
settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its highly
uncertain nature as of March 31, 2017."

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.


STATE STREET: Suits over Invoicing Practices Pending
----------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
defending class action lawsuits related to its invoicing
practices.

In January 2017, a State Street shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company alleging that
statements made by the Company in its annual reports for the 2011-
2015 period regarding its internal controls and procedures were
misleading due to the failure of those controls and procedures to
detect the practices at issue in transition management and
invoicing matters.

The Company said, "In January 2014, we entered into a settlement
with the FCA, pursuant to which we paid a fine of GBP22.9 million
(approximately $37.8 million), as a result of our having charged
six clients of our U.K. transition management business during 2010
and 2011 amounts in excess of the contractual terms. The SEC and
the DOJ opened separate investigations into this matter. In April
2016, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston charged two former
employees in our transition management business with criminal
fraud in connection with their alleged role in this matter, and,
in May 2016, the SEC commenced a parallel civil enforcement
proceeding against one of these individuals.

"On January 18, 2017, we announced that we had entered into a
settlement agreement with the DOJ and the United States Attorney
for the District of Massachusetts to resolve their investigation.
Under the terms of the agreement, we, among other things, paid a
fine of $32.3 million and entered into a deferred prosecution
agreement. Under the deferred prosecution agreement, we agreed to
retain an independent compliance consultant and compliance monitor
for a term of three years (subject to extension) which will, among
other things, evaluate the effectiveness of our compliance
controls and business ethics and make related recommendations.

"We are also in discussions with the SEC Staff regarding a
resolution of their investigation, and have reached an agreement
in principle with the Staff of the SEC to pay a penalty of $32.3
million (equal to the fine being paid to the DOJ). Resolution of
the matter is subject to completion of negotiations with the SEC
Staff on other terms of the settlement, followed by review and
consideration by the SEC.

"As of March 31, 2017, we had an accrual of $32.3 million with
respect to the SEC investigation.

"In December 2015, we announced a review of the manner in which we
invoiced certain expenses to some of our Investment Servicing
clients, primarily in the United States, during an 18-year period
going back to 1998, and our determination that we had incorrectly
invoiced clients for certain expenses. We informed our clients in
December 2015 that we will pay to them the amounts we concluded
were incorrectly invoiced to them, plus interest. We currently
expect to pay at least $340 million (including interest), in
connection with that review, which is ongoing, of which
approximately $47 million has not yet been paid to clients and is
accrued in our consolidated statement of condition at March 31,
2017. We are implementing enhancements to our billing processes,
and we are reviewing the conduct of our employees and have taken
appropriate steps to address conduct inconsistent with our
standards, including, in some cases, termination of employment. We
are also evaluating other billing practices relating to our
Investment Servicing clients, including calculation of asset-based
fees.

"We have received a purported class action demand letter alleging
that our invoicing practices were unfair and deceptive under
Massachusetts law. A class of customers, or particular customers,
may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly
invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under
Massachusetts law.

"In addition, in March 2017, a purported class action was
commenced against us alleging that our invoicing practices
violated duties owed to retirement plan customers under the
Employee Retirement Income and Security Act.

"We are also responding to requests for information from, and are
cooperating with investigations by, governmental authorities on
these matters, including the civil and criminal divisions of the
DOJ, the SEC, the DOL and the Massachusetts Attorney General,
which could result in significant fines or other sanctions, civil
and criminal, against us. The severity of such fines or other
sanctions could take into account factors such as the amount and
duration of our incorrect invoicing, the government's assessment
of the conduct of our employees, as well as prior conduct such as
that which resulted in our January 2017 deferred prosecution
agreement in connection with transition management services and
our recent settlement of civil claims regarding our indirect
foreign exchange business. Any of the foregoing could have a
material adverse effect on our reputation or business, including
the imposition of restrictions on the operation of our business or
a reduction in client demand. Resolution of these matters could
also have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of
operations for the period or periods in which such matters are
resolved or anaccrual is determined to be required. No accrual,
other than a reserve for client reimbursement, is reflected on our
consolidated statement of condition as of March 31, 2017."


STATION CASINOS: Faces "Coyne" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR F. COYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. STATION CASINOS LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company, RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01603-JAD-PAL (D. Nev., June 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants
have engaged in an illegal, willful and malicious policy and
practice of failing to compensate their hourly employees, by
requiring employees to attend a mandatory pre-shift meeting off
the clock and without compensation.  The case alleges violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee.

Station Casinos LLC is a gaming, development and management
company that owns and operates nine major hotel/casino properties
and ten smaller casino properties in the Las Vegas regional
market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
     Leah L. Jones, Esq.
     THIERMAN BUCK LLP
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, NV 89511
     Phone: (775) 284-1500
     Fax: (775) 703-5027
     E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
             josh@thiermanbuck.com
             leah@thiermanbuck.com

        - and -

     Christian Gabroy, Esq.
     GABROY LAW OFFICES
     170 S. Green Valley Pkwy
     Henderson, NV 89012
     Phone: (702) 259-7777
     Fax: (702) 259-7704
     E-mail: christian@gabroy.com

        - and -

     Charles A. Jones, Esq.
     JONES LAW FIRM
     9585 Prototype Court, Suite B
     Reno, NV 89521
     Phone: (775) 853-6440
     Fax: (775) 853-6445
     E-mail: caj@joneslawfirm.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Action Lawuit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case captioned, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust
Bank.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members.

The Bank filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was
dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely
granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on
September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the
appeal.

On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument
on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed
the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing
in the ERISA class action lawsuit.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class
action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment
option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The
plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts
from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division (the "District Court"), in November 2008. On October 26,
2009, an amended complaint was filed.

On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of
The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an
order remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of
this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to
employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings in light of
Dudenhoeffer.

On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss.

On August 17, 2016, the District Court entered an order that among
other things granted certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. According to the Order, the class is defined as
"All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate
families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time
between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust
common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who
sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in
SunTrust Stock."

On August 1, 2016, certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment as it relates to them, which was granted by
the District Court on October 5, 2016. Discovery is ongoing.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Mutual Funds Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing
in the Mutual Funds class action.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of
the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this
action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this
motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's
dismissal.

On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014,
plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation
of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly
with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on
October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on
December 16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay
this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble
v. Edison International.

On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held
that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from
investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.
After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court.

On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The
Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement Reached in "Thurmond" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties have
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case, Thurmond,
Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.

STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been
named as defendants in a putative class action alleging that the
companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements
with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs
allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who
agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them
by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the
insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that
this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of
borrowers. The matter was filed in February 2011 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case
had been stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.
SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case, which was
granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery
surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for
certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond had been
stayed a second time pending a ruling in a similar case currently
before the Third Circuit concerning the application of the statute
of limitations. While the stay was lifted, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the matter.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Case Now Final
----------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the
case, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., is now final.

This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016.
Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers
when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM
fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges
that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such
interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim
on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of
Georgia borrowers. Plaintiff and STM reached a settlement of the
action with the class, and the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on September 9, 2016. The settlement terms had an
insignificant impact on the Company's financial position.

On February 6, 2017, the court approved the settlement and that
settlement is now final.


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Flack" Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY L. FLACK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
STEPHEN G. WALDIS, and KAREN L. ROSENBERGER, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-04147 (D.N.J., June 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) [its recently acquired]
Intralinks Holdings was underperforming; (ii) as such, the
Company's guidance was overstated; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Synchronoss's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides mobile solutions for
service providers and enterprise through scalable software
solutions and platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


TAKATA CORP: Bankruptcy Filing to Impact Faulty Air Bag Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
bankruptcy filing by Japanese air bag maker Takata will leave
little money for dozens of people who sued the company over deaths
and injuries caused by its exploding air bag inflators, according
to outside legal experts and lawyers suing the company.

Takata Corp. and its U.S. operations are likely to seek bankruptcy
protection by the end of June in a deal that would sell its assets
to competitor Key Safety Systems Inc., a person briefed on the
talks said.  The person didn't want to be identified because
discussions are in progress.

The price Key will pay is unknown, but much of it likely will go
toward paying a $1 billion U.S. criminal settlement.  Most of the
settlement money will go to automakers as restitution for recall
costs.

Key is expected to buy Takata's assets "free and clear" of past
liabilities, and lawyers say there won't be enough money to give
victims what they would have received if they were suing a healthy
company.

So far the faulty inflators have killed 11 people in the U.S. and
16 worldwide.  Over 180 people have been injured.  The problem
touched off the biggest recall in U.S. automotive history,
involving 19 automakers, 42 million vehicles and up to 69 million
inflators. About 100 million inflators have been recalled
worldwide.

Some victims have serious facial injuries from metal shrapnel and
would win large verdicts if Takata were financially strong,
lawyers say.  Kevin Dean, a South Carolina lawyer who has 25 cases
pending against Takata, said one of his clients, a 26-year-old
man, will never be able to smile due to nerve damage.

"It destroys people's faces.  It's just a horrible injury," said
Kent Emison, a Missouri, lawyer whose firm is considering a
lawsuit against Takata and others on behalf of a woman whose
trachea was punctured by shrapnel.

Takata's troubles stem from use of the explosive chemical ammonium
nitrate in the inflators to deploy air bags in a crash. The
chemical can deteriorate when exposed to hot and humid air and
burn too fast, blowing apart a metal canister and spewing out
metal fragments.

In February, Takata pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to the $1
billion settlement.  Lawyers acknowledged in court that the
company would have to be sold to fund the settlement.  Automakers
would get $850 million in restitution for recall costs and a $25
million fine would be paid to the government.  Takata already has
paid $125 million into a fund for victims.

"Takata intends to try to use our bankruptcy laws to escape
responsibility for the injured and the families of the dead," said
Bradford Child, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents the family of
a woman killed by a ruptured inflator.

In a statement last week, Takata maintained the possibility of
keeping the company in operation.  A committee set up to explore
restructuring has made a recommendation with Key as a suitor, but
Takata's board hasn't decided on it.

Douglas Baird, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of
Chicago, said he expects Key will get Takata's assets without
liability for past claims.  Without this provision, no suitor
would buy the company.

"It's in the interests of all these victims that you have this
free and clear sale," he said.  "The alternative is to liquidate
the assets and sell them for kindling wood."

Lawyers are unhappy that automakers will get $850 million while
relatively little goes to victims.  Mr. Emison and others say $125
million will go quickly, estimating that victims will get 5 to 10
cents on the dollar of what they would have received from a
financially strong company. A court-appointed special master will
come up with an allocation formula.

If Key pays more than $1 billion for the company, victims could
get more.  A similar pool set up by General Motors paid out nearly
$600 million to settle 399 death and injury claims due to ignition
switches that could shut off cars without warning.

Law firms also are suing automakers, but some lawyers say it will
be hard to get money there because Takata has admitted that it
concealed the problem.  Dean says there's evidence that automakers
knew Takata inflators were defective yet continued to use them,
but automakers say they were deceived by Takata and shouldn't be
liable.

At the end of April, only 22 percent of the 69 million recalled
inflators in the U.S. had been replaced under the recalls, leaving
almost 54 million on the roads, according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration website.  This means more inflators
will likely explode and more people will be hurt in the future,
Mr. Emison said.

Key could be liable for future claims depending a lot on state
laws that govern liability for successor companies, Baird said.
But Dean said he thinks Key will structure the deal so it doesn't
face any liability.

Key, with U.S. operations headquartered in suburban Detroit, is
now owned by Ningbo Joyson Electronic Corp. of China.  The maker
of inflators, seat belts and crash sensors would not comment on
Takata's bankruptcy.


THERANOS INC: Judge Allows Blood Test Fraud Claims to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Theranos Inc.
seems to be slowly digging out from the pile of litigation that
threatened to bury the company last year in the wake of damning
reports about its technology.

On June 13, a federal judge in Arizona swept away most of the
dozen-plus class action claims against the once-vaunted blood
testing startup and former pharmacy partner Walgreens, brought on
behalf of patients in that state and California who took Theranos
tests.

U.S. District Judge Russel Holland definitively rejected
conspiracy and medical battery claims advanced by lawyers for the
proposed class at Keller Rohrback and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein.  But Judge Holland allowed parts of their fraud and
unjust enrichment claims to advance, giving the plaintiffs another
chance to fix some deficiencies he found in their pleading.

The judge seemed skeptical of defenses by Theranos and Walgreens
that they are shielded from certain fraud claims relating to
advertisements about the blood tests.  The companies argued they
were nothing more "puffery" and thus allowable under the law.
But Holland wrote that statements like "we continuously conduct
proficiency testing and participate in multiple proficiency
testing programs" are not puffery.  "As for defendants' alleged
misrepresentations about Theranos testing being accurate and
reliable, it is at least plausible that these statements may not
be puffery," the judge added.

After The Wall Street Journal published a series of exposÇs
calling into question Theranos' testing technology, the company
was forced by regulators to curtail its operations and void or
issue corrected blood test results.

A wave of false advertising class actions was filed in both
Northern California, where the company is headquartered, and in
Arizona where Theranos had operations and offered its blood tests
through Walgreens.  They were eventually consolidated in Judge
Holland's courtroom.

Michael Mugmon -- michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- a partner at
Wilmer Cutler Hale Pickering & Dorr in Palo Alto who represents
Theranos in the litigation, on June 14 expressed satisfaction at
the judge's ruling.  "Theranos is pleased that the result takes us
one step closer to putting this litigation behind us," he said.

A spokesman for Walgreens, represented by Weil, Gotshal & Manges
partner Diane Sullivan, declined to comment.  Lynn Sarko, a
partner at Keller Rohrback in Seattle and one of the lead lawyers
for the proposed class, could not be immediately reached on
June 14.

Theranos in April announced a $4.46 million settlement with the
Arizona attorney general to refund customers who bought its tests,
and in May announced it had settled suits brought by two of its
early investors.  But it still faces a class action brought on
behalf of indirect investors pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and a breach of contract
suit brought by Walgreens.


TONER DOCTOR: Plantation Spinal Sues Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
PLANTATION SPINAL CARE CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. THE TONER DOCTOR, a
foreign company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61149-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
June 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered actual harm as a direct result of Defendant's
transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The subject harm caused by Defendant's conduct is a concrete
injury because the unsolicited and violative fax advertisements
interfere with the legitimate business enterprise of Plaintiff and
Proposed Class Members, says the complaint.

THE TONER DOCTOR -- http://thetonerdoctor.com-- sells ink
cartridges, toner cartridges, and drums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 524-2820
     Fax: (954) 524-2822
     Email: seth@pathtojustice.com

        - and -

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
     5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
     Davie, FL 33328
     Phone: (954) 889-3359
     Fax: (954) 889-5913
     E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com
             Mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com


TOWNSEND TREE: Faces "Hart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Hart, Cody Hart, and Jody Hart, individually and on behalf
of all others similar situated v. Townsend Tree Service Co., Inc.,
and Townsend Tree Service Co., LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02126-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., June 9, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of vegetation
management, power line clearance, herbicide package and
application, electric utility line construction, storm damage
relief, and the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of
custom control panels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
      Mitchell D. Benjamin
      DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3171
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com
              benjamin@dcbflegal.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimants Ask Court to Unravel $25MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that one of the
claimants in the Trump University case -- herself a Florida lawyer
-- has asked a federal appeals court to unravel the $25 million
agreement that settled the matter shortly after the election of
President Donald Trump -- and she's brought in noted appellate
attorney Deepak Gupta to do it.

Mr. Gupta, who is already spearheading a case against Trump
brought under the emoluments clauses of the Constitution, adds
legal firepower to the claims of Sherri Simpson, who
unsuccessfully objected to the Trump University settlement in
March.

On June 12, she petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to reverse U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's approval
of the settlement.

"Trump University promised its students an 'Ivy League quality'
education in real estate.  Donald Trump, the 'most celebrated
entrepreneur on earth,' was 'ready to share -- with Americans like
you -- the Trump process for investing in today's once-in-a-
lifetime real estate market,'" Ms. Simpson's lawyers wrote in her
opening brief.  "But it didn't take long for her to realize that
it was all a scam."

But Ms. Simpson and Trump agree on one thing: The settlement
resolved fraud claims over Trump University for a "small fraction"
of the potential award, she wrote.  The "small fraction" language
is drawn straight from a tweet Trump sent announcing the
settlement on Nov. 16 of last year.

Mr. Gupta's addition to Simpson's case fueled class counsel's
insistence that the objection -- and now the appeal -- is
politically motivated.

"It's just another indication that it's politically motivated,"
said Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- of San Diego's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.  Mr. Coughlin has previously called
Simpson's objection politically motivated, noting that she
appeared in campaign ads against Trump during the election.  "A
couple of attorneys who don't like Trump have decided to pursue it
on her behalf, but it's really on behalf of the attorneys and
their own political agenda."

Mr. Gupta, of Washington, D.C.'s Gupta Wessler, said politics have
nothing to do with his involvement in the case.

"That's not my motivation," he said.  "Most people thought the
case was settled and that's the end of it.  That's actually quite
wrong.  It's a pretty serious set of legal problems with this
settlement."

Daniel Petrocelli, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles
who represents Trump and Trump University, did not respond to a
request for comment.

The settlement, reached in November shortly after Trump was
elected, resolved two class actions and a case brought by New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that alleged Trump University
falsely promised Trump personally handpicked the instructors and
that the program was an "accredited university." Plaintiffs
attorneys waived their legal fees.

Ms. Simpson, a personal bankruptcy attorney in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, objected to the deal. She is represented by Gary
Friedman, a solo practitioner in New York.

Lawyers at Robbins Geller have accused Friedman of ethics
violations in soliciting clients on the phone.  Mr. Gupta said he
joined the appellate team after Simpson's lawyers, which also
include lawyers at Markun Zusman Freniere Compton in San
Francisco, reached out to him.

The crux of the appeal is that the settlement failed to give
Simpson and other class members the opportunity to opt out of the
deal.  A 2015 class notice, Simpson has argued, guaranteed that
right.  Not offering a second chance to opt out, she contends,
violated her due process rights and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

"The logical inference here was they were trying to discourage
people from objecting or opting out," Mr. Gupta said.  "There's a
strong constitutional argument that where you have valid claims
for monetary damages you can never have a class action that denies
the right to opt out of a settlement. But certainly, you can't do
so when you tell people they have that right."

Ms. Simpson's brief also insisted she had standing to object even
though she filled out a claim form under which she waived her
right to sue.  She had to submit her claim by the March 6 deadline
in order to preserve her right to get compensated as a class
member should her objection fail, her brief says.

Mr. Gupta called the standing issue a "constitutional Catch-22".

"As far as we are aware, no other federal court has permitted a
class-action-settlement process that runs roughshod over class
members' due process rights in this manner," Mr. Gupta argued to
the Ninth Circuit in the brief. "This court should not become the
first."

Mr. Coughlin said her appeal raised all the same arguments that
Judge Curiel rejected.

"Everyone was given an opt-out opportunity, and she chose not to
do that at that time," he said.

He also emphasized that the settlement provides up to 90 percent
reimbursement for class members.  Judge Curiel, when granting
final approval of the settlement on March 31, also praised the
deal's "extraordinary amount of recovery" for thousands of class
members.

Ms. Simpson's appeal now holds up those payments, many of whom are
elderly, Mr. Coughlin said.

"These people were old when they signed up, and now they're
dying," Mr. Coughlin said.  "A lot of them still have credit card
debt on their books."

Last month, Mr. Coughlin filed a motion to expedite briefing
before the Ninth Circuit, which was granted on May 30.  His
response is due on July 12, with oral arguments anticipated this
fall.


TT OF PINE RIDGE: Mahoney Seeks Prelim. OK of $5.7MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Tom Mahoney, individually
and on behalf of a class v. TT of Pine Ridge, Inc., Case No. 9:17-
cv-80029-DMM (S.D. Fla.), submits an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action lawsuit by
filing a complaint in the Court on January 9, 2017, alleging that
Defendant TT of Pine Ridge, Inc. d/b/a Naples Nissan placed
telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone number, and to other
members of a putative class, without prior express consent.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that he and other members of
the putative class are entitled to statutory damages and
injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The parties' Settlement Agreement will dispose of all claims for
this proposed class:

     All persons or legal entities in the United States who,
     during the Class Period, received a non-emergency call,
     text, or voicemail message from or on behalf of Naples
     Nissan through the use of an automatic telephone dialing
     system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Subject to the Court's approval, the Parties agree that the
Plaintiff will be appointed as Class Representative.
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement provides that Chris R.
Miltenberger, Esq., of The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger,
PLLC, and Brandon J. Hill, Esq., of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A.,
will be appointed Class Counsel.

The total settlement value for the class is $5.7 million made
available by the Defendant to provide either Voucher Awards to
Approved Claimants, or cash by way of mailed checks.  Class
members may elect either a $15 credit voucher or in the
alternative a cash award of $4.  The credit voucher will be freely
transferrable and redeemable within one year of the date of
issuance for any service or merchandise at the Defendant's
dealership.

Following notice to the Settlement Class, and prior to the final
approval hearing, Class Counsel will request that the Court
approve incentive awards to the Class Representative in an amount
of $15,000.  In addition, Class Counsel will apply to the Court
for attorneys' fees of not more than $500,000, which is less than
9% of the Credit Voucher Fund and less than one-third of the
Settlement Cash Fund.  Class Counsel will also apply to the Court
for not more than $20,000 for costs and expenses, to be paid upon
approval by the Court.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CqC6s0PW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chris Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul Sodhi, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 512-1800
          Facsimile: (954) 512-1818
          E-mail: PSodhi@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
          Harrison Brown, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
          E-mail: ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com
                  HBrown@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Patricia E. Lowry, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
          1900 Phillips Point West
          777 South Flagler Drive
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 650-7200
          Facsimile: (561) 655-1509
          E-mail: Patricia.Lowry@SquirePB.com


UNIT CORPORATION: Class Certification Pending in Panola Case
------------------------------------------------------------
UNIT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that there is no timetable
for when the court will issue its ruling on class certification in
the case captioned, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et
al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of
Latimer County, Oklahoma.

The Company said, "Panola Independent School District No. 4,
Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine
Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy
are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and
gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration
segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is
that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production."

"We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions
are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the
case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially
different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions
are taken for each lease.

"On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order
certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals
reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The
Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.

"On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

"In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held
where, in addition to the defenses described, we argued that the
amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no
timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of
Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification
issues are pending."

Unit Corporation has three principal business segments: Oil and
Natural Gas, Contract Drilling and Mid-Stream.


UNITED STATES: $13.9MM Settlement in "Furlong" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the United States Court of Federal
Claims granted the request for final approval of the proposed
settlement agreement in the case captioned JOHN P. FURLONG and
LAUREN B. PEARCE, husband and wife, et al., For Themselves and As
Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 09-367L (Fed.
Cl.).

In this case, the Plaintiffs contend that they own real property
adjacent to a 9.14-mile rail corridor in Albany County, New York.
They assert that until July 8, 2003, the Delaware and Hudson
Railway Company, Inc., doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway
Co., and its predecessors held easements for railroad purposes
that crossed their land.  According to them, the Defendant
authorized the conversion of the railroad rights-of-way into a
recreational trail pursuant to the National Trails System Act,
conduct that resulted in a taking in violation of the Just
Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

On March 4, 2013, upon agreement of the parties, another judge of
the Court certified the matter as an opt-in class action, and
adopted the Parties' proposed schedule for providing notice to
putative class members and preparing a claims book.  Following
participation in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, they
reached a provisional settlement agreement on Dec. 16, 2015.  The
proposed settlement agreement provides for payment of damages for
the alleged taking of the 271 class members' property rights,
interest from the date of the alleged taking, and attorneys' fees
and costs under section 304(c) of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ("URA").
The proposed settlement agreement was subsequently approved by the
Surface Transportation Board and the United States Department of
Justice.

On Feb. 24, 2017, the class counsel moved the court for (i)
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement, (ii)
approval of the notice to class members regarding the proposed
settlement agreement, and (iii) the setting of a public fairness
hearing.  The class counsel filed the settlement agreement with
the court on March 6, 2017.  Following a status conference and the
submission of an updated proposed notice, the Court, on April 18,
2017, granted preliminary approval, approved the notice to class
members, and set a public fairness hearing.  On June 1, 2017, the
class counsel notified the Court that it had received "explicit
approvals" for 225 out of 271 claims, and no objections or
comments pertaining to the proposed settlement amounts. Nine
additional class members submitted responses, all indicating
approval, after the deadline but before the fairness hearing.  The
fairness hearing was conducted on June 13, 2017, and no class
members participated.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Defendant will pay
$13,988,929.28 plus additional interest as follows:

     a. $6,489,084.21 in just compensation, with awards for
individual class members ranging from $1,300 to $440,662;

     b. $5,795,743.34 in interest through April 7, 2017;

     c. additional interest at 3.74%, compounded annually, after
April 7, 2017, through the date of payment;

     d. $1,299,060.20 for attorneys' fees under the URA; and

     e. $405,041.53 for reimbursement of costs and expenses under
the URA.

The Court approved the proposed settlement agreement.  It directed
the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in the
amount of $6,489,084.21 in principal and $5,795,743.34 in interest
through April 7, 2017, apportioned as shown in the table
accompanying the attached approved settlement agreement.  Further
interest will be payable at a rate of 3.74%, compounded annually,
beginning on April 8, 2017, through the date the judgment is paid.
In addition, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs in the amount of $1,704,101.73 for attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the URA.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 16, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/DBHyaU from Leagle.com.

JOHN P. FURLONG, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald --
WALD@SWM.LEGAL -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

LAUREN B. PEARCE, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

NOONAN LANE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

ANTHONY LOMBARDI, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

AMY LOMBARDI, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

DUANE M BOWMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

TINA M BOWMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

D. MARISA FINN, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

WILLIAM S. DROZD, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

ROBERT LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald,
Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Jessica Michelle Held, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Seeks Fed. Cir. Review of Ruling in "Memmer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States of America filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Memmer v. US, Case No. 1:14-cv-00135-MMS, in
the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The nature of suit is stated as "Taking - Rails to Trails."

The appellate case is captioned as Memmer v. US, Case No. 17-2150,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on June 27, 2017;
   -- Certificate of Interest is due on June 27, 2017;
   -- Docketing Statement is due on July 13, 2017; and
   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on August 14, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY MEMMER, For Himself and As
Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, is
represented by:

          Steven Wald, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
          12747 Olive Boulevard
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 720-6190
          Facsimile: (314) 899-2925
          E-mail: wald@swm.legal

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Tyler Lynne Burgess, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          601 D Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 616-4119
          Facsimile: (202) 305-0506
          E-mail: tyler.burgess@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Trump Suffers Another Defeat in Travel Ban Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
large crowd rallies on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, led by
top Democrat lawmakers, to denounce President Donald Trump's
executive order banning immigration from 7 Muslim-majority
countries, on January 30, 2017.

A federal appellate court on June 12 handed President Donald Trump
his second major defeat in a month after finding his executive
order suspending immigration from six Muslim nations and the U.S.
refugee program violated federal law.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in an unsigned opinion in Hawaii v. Trump, held that the
executive order exceeded Trump's authority under federal
immigration law.  That decision comes less than a month after the
Fourth Circuit, on different grounds, upheld an injunction
stopping the order from taking effect in International Refugee
Assistance Project v. Trump.

"The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad
powers to control the entry of aliens, and to take actions to
protect the American public.  But immigration, even for the
president, is not a one-person show," the panel wrote.

The full Fourth Circuit, in a 10-3 decision, ruled that the
executive order was unconstitutional religious discrimination. But
the three Ninth Circuit judges--all Clinton appointees -- said on
June 12 that it was not necessary to address the constitutional
question if the case could be decided on statutory grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the government's requests
that the Hawaii and Fourth Circuit injunctions be lifted.  The
government also has asked the high court grant review to the
government's appeal of the Fourth Circuit decision.

The Ninth Circuit panel said Trump did not meet "the essential
precondition" to exercising the authority that Congress gave him
under federal immigration law.  The president, the judges said,
did not "make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes
of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United
States.'"

The panel said the order "runs afoul of other provisions of the
[Immigration and Nationality Act] that prohibit nationality-based
discrimination and require the president to follow a specific
process when setting the annual cap on the admission of refugees."

The panel upheld most of an injunction issued by a Hawaii federal
district judge, but found the judge abused his discretion in
enjoining the president himself and internal agency review
procedures.

Ruling were Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez.


UNITED STATES: Trump Tweets Cited in Travel Ban Case Arguments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in what may be a first at the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald
Trump's Twitter account was identified on June 12 as an
"authority" along with the cases, law review articles and news
citations that lawyers typically use to bolster their arguments.

The cited authority -- "Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump),
Twitter (June 5, 2017), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump --
came from the challengers to the president's second executive
order restricting travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.

Those challengers, represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal
Katyal, in the case Trump v. Hawaii, are urging the high court to
reject a Trump administration request that would void a trial
judge's order blocking the travel ban from taking effect.
In the response to the government's stay request, Mr. Katyal
wrote: "Throughout these judicial proceedings, the president has
continued to make generalized, often inflammatory, statements
about the Muslim faith and its adherents."

Hawaii's brief argued that the Trump administration's executive
order is religious discrimination and that it exceeds the
president's statutory authority.

The president's recent tweets -- specifically discussing what he
declared to be a "travel ban" and questioning the Justice
Department's lawyering in the case -- have been viewed by many
legal scholars and others as undermining the government's legal
arguments that the executive order is not any ban.

As The National Law Journal reported recently: "Twitter itself--
but not a tweet--has only been cited once in a Supreme Court case.
In Dietz v. Bouldin, a 2016 case on recalling jurors, Justice
Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority, "Immediately after
discharge, a juror could text something about the case to a
spouse, research an aspect of the evidence on Google, or read
reactions to a verdict on Twitter."

Mr. Katyal first listed the president's campaign statements and
statements shortly after his inauguration as evidence that
religious discrimination triggered the first executive order.  He
then zeroed in on the president's recent tweets to show the same
intent is behind the second executive order.

"On June 5, 2017, days after the government filed its stay
application in this court, President Trump echoed these sentiments
in a series of Twitter posts championing the 'original Travel
Ban'," Mr. Katyal wrote.  "He decried how the "Justice
Dep[artment]" had submitted a 'watered down, politically correct
version * * * to S.C.' He urged the Justice Department to seek 'an
expedited hearing of the watered down Travel ban before the
Supreme Court,' and to 'seek [a] much tougher version.'  Finally,
he claimed that '[t]he courts are slow and political," but that
his Administration was already 'EXTREME VETTING people coming into
the U.S.'"

A response also will be filed on June 12 to the government's
request that the justices lift an injunction issued by a Virginia
federal judge blocking the executive order. That ruling was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in May. The
government also is seeking full review by the high court of the
Fourth Circuit's decision.

There is no timetable yet for when the justices will act on the
government's two stay requests and its petition for review.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Certification Sought in TRAC Program Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN TRENZ, FRANCIS BREIDENBACH, CAITLYN
FARRELL, and NOELLE SIMMS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS,
INC. (dba PEAK PERFORMANCE MARKETING SOLUTIONS), a California
Corporation; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a Virginia
Corporation; and DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08356-
AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move before the Hon, Judge
Andre Birotte, Jr. on August 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, for an order:

   1. certifying two classes of:

      Pre-October 16, 2013 Class:

      "all persons within the United States who received any
      telephone call from Defendants or their agents to said
      person's wireless number as part of Defendant Volkswagen
      Group of America's "Target and Retain After Sales
      Customers" ("TRAC") program, from October 26, 2011 until
      October 15, 2013".

      Post-October 16, 2013 Class:

      "all persons within the United States who received any
      telephone call from Defendants or their agents to said
      person's wireless number as part of Defendant Volkswagen
      Group of America's "Target and Retain After Sales
      Customers" ("TRAC") program, after October 16, 2013;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Brian Trenz, Francis Breidenbach,
      Caitlyn Farrell, and Noelle Simms as the Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Zaveri Tabb, APC and Patterson
      Law Group, APC as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oa4rlWi4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
           James A. Tabb, Esq.
           ZAVERI TABB APC
           402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 831 6988
           Facsimile: (619) 239 7800
           E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com
                   jimmy@zaveritabb.com

                - and -

           James R. Patterson, Esq.
           Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
           PATTERSON LAW GROUP
           402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 756 6990
           Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
           E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                   ali@pattersonlawgroup.com


WASHINGTON: ACLU Sues Over Failure to Teach Special Ed Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for US News, reports that a lawsuit from the
Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union accuses
the state of failing to ensure that students with behavioral
disabilities get an education instead of just kicked out of
school.

The complaint, filed on June 8 in Thurston County Superior Court,
says the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
has a duty to ensure that all children receive a public education,
including those who have behavioral problems related to conditions
such as bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder or
Asperger's syndrome.

Instead, the lawsuit says, districts across the state suspend and
expel special-education students at more than twice the rate of
their peers -- and further, school officials often send the
children to "time-out" rooms or have their parents pick them up
early, which results in their exclusion from an educational
setting.

Special-education students make up 14 percent of the state's
students, but nearly 30 percent of suspended and expelled
students, the ACLU said.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of special-
education students in the Yakima and Pasco school districts. The
ACLU says those districts suspend or expel special-education
students at especially high rates.

A spokesman for the state superintendent's office, Nathan Olson,
said in an email that officials received the complaint on June 8.

"Agency lawyers are currently reviewing the details. (The state
superintendent's office) is dedicated to the success and well-
being of all Washington students," Olson said.

Pasco School District spokesman Shane Edinger said in an email
that the district has not been contacted directly by the ACLU, or
any parents, regarding any litigation.

"We are unable to comment on a particular student's educational
program or records due to federal and state laws that protect
student privacy. We take our responsibilities under state and
federal law to educate all of our students very seriously, and the
safety of our students is our highest priority," Edinger said.

Techniques such as positive behavioral interventions and
approaches to handling students that reflect the difficulties they
may be facing can dramatically reduce the need for suspensions or
expulsions, the lawsuit said, but the state has not made resources
or training in those techniques adequately available to districts
around the state.

It also suggests that districts should individually tailor their
responses to behavioral problems special-education students
depending on their specific needs.

The lawsuit cites the cases of five special-needs students in
particular, identifying them by their initials. They include a 13-
year-old Yakima boy excluded for 52 school days over the past two
years due to outbursts related to his bipolar disorder and other
conditions.

The complaint alleges that he has been disciplined and even
physically restrained for trying to board a school bus with his
classmates and refusing to change out of his gym clothes.

Another plaintiff is an 8-year-old Yakima boy with Asperger's
syndrome and gastro-intestinal issues. During the 2015-16 school
year, he was denied recess for taking too long in the bathroom due
to his gastro-intestinal issues, was repeatedly suspended for
disrupting class, and was sent home early from school at least
three times every week, the lawsuit said. [GN]


WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: "Davis" Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA DAVIS and JENNIFER ELLIOTT, Individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries in
and on behalf of the WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT SAVINGS
PLAN, Plaintiff, vs. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01641 (E.D. Mo., June 8, 2017),
accuses Defendants of breach of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The case alleges that
instead of leveraging the Plan's substantial bargaining power to
benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendant caused the Plan
to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and
administrative services. Further, Defendant selected and retained
investment options for the Plan that historically and consistently
underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive investment
management fees.

THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan.
Eligible faculty and staff members of Washington University are
able to participate in the Savings Plan. The Savings Plan provides
the primary source of retirement income for many employees of
Washington University.  Washington University in St. Louis is a
private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian institution of higher
learning non-profit educational institution with its principal
place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. The University is
governed by a Board of Trustees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John F. Edgar, Esq.
     Matthew T. Swift, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
             mts@edgarlawfirm.com

        - and -

     John J. Nestico, Esq.
     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     Michael McKay, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0145
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd Schneider, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd S. Collins, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
     E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


WASTE CONNECTIONS: Faces "Lejeaun" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celestine Lejeaun and Jerry Monroe, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated v. Waste Connections of Louisiana, Inc.
and Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-
05695-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La., June 9, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay trash collection truck driver'
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a waste collection service company located
at 501 Louisiana Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina L. Carroll, Esq.
      ROBEIN, URANN, SPENCER, PICARD & CANGEMI, APLC
      2540 Severn Avenue, Suite 400
      Metairie, LA  70002
      Telephone: (504) 885-9994
      Facsimile: (504) 885-9969
      E-mail: info@ruspclaw.com


WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES: Appeals Orders in "Tang" Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Keung Chan and Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., filed an
appeal from the District Court's order and order & judgment, both
dated May 16, 2017, entered in the lawsuit styled Chaohui Tang,
Jianlin Li, and Qing Ze Liu, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., and
John Does #1-10, Jane Does #1-10, Company ABC #1-10, Case No. 14-
cv-390, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and
former employees of the Defendants are entitled to, among other
things: (i) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law, and (ii) unpaid minimum wages for hours for which they were
paid less than the minimum wages, all in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Flushing, New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. 17-1862, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Chaohui Tang, Jianlin Li, and Qingze Liu, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          305 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (732) 593-9321
          E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., and Keung Chan
are represented by:

          Michael Cassell, Esq.
          HOGAN & CASSELL, LLP
          500 North Broadway
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 942-4700
          E-mail: mcassell@hogancassell.com


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Class Certification Sought in "Shaw" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ADAM SHAW, PETER GOLIGHTLY, JUSTIN TURNER
and JOSHUA STANSFIELD as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01924-
EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on November 9,
2017 at 9:00 a.m. for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      on behalf of:

      "all individuals who participated as Magic: the Gathering
      judges at events sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast, LLC
      from April 12, 2013, through the resolution of this case;

   2. authorizing the parties to send notices pursuant to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may join this action
      and assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Collective Action
      Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms;

   4. ordering Defendant to Produce a Putative Collective Action
      Member List setting forth the last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of training, and
      partial social security numbers of all putative collective
      action members within fourteen (14) days this Court grants
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, if this
      Court is inclined to do so;

   5. approving the designation of Kurtzman Carson Consultants
      ("KCC") as the Class Administrator responsible for, among
      other things, distributing the Notice of Collective Action
      Lawsuit and processing the returned Consent to Join forms
      on behalf of the collective, and authorizing electronic
      signatures on the Consent to Join form by potential opt-in
      plaintiffs.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F3OTpI8X

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, PC
          456 Montgomery St., Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94101
          Telephone: (415) 983 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397 9005

               - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          600 W Broadway Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101-3370
          Telephone: (619) 272 7014
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1819

               - and -

          Ross Cornell, Esq.
          111 W. Ocean Blvd. Suite 400
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 612 1708
          Facsimile: (562) 394 9556

               - and -

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612-3536
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417

               - and -

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MALK LAW FIRM
          1180 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 302
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203 0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499 5210


WORTH COUNTY, GA: Students Speak Out About Humiliating Pat-down
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Ortiz, writing for NBC News, reports that hundreds of Georgia
high school students were the subject of a humiliating pat-down
that allowed local sheriff's deputies to intrusively touch their
bodies during a fruitless search for drugs, according to a federal
lawsuit.

The warrantless search occurred in April, the suit says, when
Worth County Sheriff's deputies conducted a massive spot check of
about 900 students at Worth County High School for illegal drugs.
Police dogs were also deployed to search bags, classrooms, lockers
and cars.

"Defendants' searches of students were intrusive, performed in an
aggressive manner, and done in full view of other students,"
according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia.

Student cellphones were seized amid the search, so personal video
footage from that day doesn't appear to have been shared on social
media, said Sarah Geraghty, Esq. -- sgeraghty@schr.org -- the
managing attorney for the Southern Center for Human Rights, which
filed the lawsuit on behalf of nine families.

The school, however, is in possession of surveillance video, which
the plaintiffs plan to ask a court to have turned over as evidence
in the case, Geraghty said on June 9.

"We believe the video shows both the identities of those doing the
searches and the level of intrusiveness of the searches," she
added.

Geraghty contends that law enforcement needed to have "specific
justifications" for searching that many students in such a wide
scope.

According to the suit, Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby had a
target list of 13 students that he suspected of possessing drugs -
- but only three of them ended up being on campus that day.

Interim Worth County Superintendent Lawrence Walters told WALB
that Hobby never asked for permission when he informed the
district in March that he was planning a search after spring
break. Police believed that they were drugs at the school after an
investigation involving several juveniles linked to a series of
burglaries.

But Walters said that "under no circumstances did we approve
touching any students." He could not be reached for further
comment on June 9.

The suit claims that the school was placed on lockdown for about
four hours while deputies forced the students to stand spread-
eagle and be examined in hallways or the gym. Deputies allegedly
"touched and manipulated students' breasts and genitals" and
"inserted fingers inside girls' bras," also exposing their body
parts.

They are also accused of touching the girls' "vaginal areas
through their underwear," while they "cupped or groped boys'
genitals."

The students felt "fear, embarrassment, stress and humiliation,"
according to the suit, which is seeking class-action status and a
jury trial to decide damages.

Hobby's attorney, Raleigh Rollins Jr., Esq. --
rrollins@alexandervann.com -- of Alexander & Vann, LLP, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on June 9. [GN]


ZOME INC: Faces Class Action Over Short Shelf Lives Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a man
has filed a class action lawsuit against Zome Inc., which does
business as E-Stores by Zome, a Washington corporation, alleging
negligent misrepresentation.

Timothy Brend filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on May 15 in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that the
defendant sold gift certificates that have unreasonably short
periods of use.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges he was misled
into purchasing gift certificates that were valid for unreasonably
short amounts of time. The plaintiff alleges Zome knew consumers
wouldn't be able to use the gift certificates purchased from them
due to their expiration dates.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunction
against the defendant, damages, court costs, interest and any
further relief this court grants. He is represented by Klint L.
Bruno, Esq. -- kbruno@brunolawus.com -- and Michael L. Silverman,
Esq. -- msilverman@brunolawus.com -- of The Bruno Firm in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017LCH06832 [GN]


* Ottawa Pre-Empts 'Gold Rush' of Anti-Spam Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Tyler Orton, writing for Business Vancouver, reports class-action
lawyers keen to spend Canada Day filing claims over unwanted
emails will instead have to spend the holiday getting patriotic.

Ottawa announced on June 7 it's delaying certain provisions in
Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) set for July 1 that would
have allowed people to file lawsuits against individuals or
organizations violating the regulations.

Lawyer Tony Wilson of Boughton Law said many businesses aren't
aware they required express consent from people they email on
their mailing lists as of next month.

"Class-action lawyers [were] waiting with bated breath for
violations of CASL," he told Business In Vancouver.

"But right now there are going to be administrative penalties and
not some sort of lawyer gold rush members of the legal profession
might have been anticipating."

Although businesses and individuals won't be subject to lawsuits,
they could still face administrative penalties as high as $1
million for individuals and $10 million for businesses.

Online dating app PlentyofFish was fined $48,000 in 2015 after
regulators investigated complaints the Vancouver company was
sending commercial emails to users without a clearly visible
unsubscribe option.

When CASL went into effect in July 2014, organizations and
individuals were given three years to seek express consent from
people when sending commercial emails.

In the intervening three years, businesses have been able to
deliver emails to people based on implied consent, such as a prior
business relationship.

But that comes to an end on July 1.

Wilson said any slipups could result in substantial legal fees for
people who are unaware of the rules.

"So you find 10,000 people who got an email blast from someone who
didn't have the consent or didn't have the unsubscribe mechanism
or failed to properly identify themselves," he said.

"And somebody is there at the receiving end of a class-action
lawsuit. That could be extremely expensive for a company that made
an honest mistake."

Business groups are applauding the government's decision.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) sent a
letter to federal Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains last month
asking Ottawa to reconsider the provision that would allow groups
and individuals to take legal action.

"We asked, and government listened," CFIB president Dan Kelly said
in a statement.

"This measure will help address some of the red tape headaches the
legislation has presented to Canadian small firms."

Anita Huberman, CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade, said her
organization is also thankful the government is now throwing the
legislation over to a parliamentary committee for review.

"This is a big win for Surrey businesses. Businesses rely on their
capacity to communicate with their clients, and some of these
measures would have limited their capacity to do this," Huber said
in a statement.

"Additionally, this provision would cost Canadians heavily in lost
productivity and mischievous litigation." [GN]



* Seyfarth Comments on 3rd Party Litigation Funding
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Karasik, Esq., and Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that a recent trend
has emerged in the class action landscape whereby a third-party
funder pays the owner of a civil claim an up-front monetary
payment in return for the claim owner's promise to convey a
portion of the potential recovery. Class action plaintiffs'
attorneys and third-party funders are incentivized under this
approach through tax advantages, whereby the attorneys can defer
tax liability on the monetary advancement until the claim pays off
while the funders can deduct their expenses and pay tax on any
profit at the lower capital-gains rate. Predictably, many of the
third-party funders enter into such agreements with plaintiffs'
attorneys confidentially for varying business or personal reasons.

In a novel decision that will profoundly impact the practice of
third-party funding of class actions, Judge Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California recently
granted defendant's ("Chevron") motion to compel plaintiff to
reveal the identity of who was funding its proposed class action
regarding a gas explosion off the coast of Nigeria in Gbarabe v.
Chevron Corp., No. 14-CV-173 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016). This ruling
provides businesses facing class actions, including employers
facing workplace class actions, a blueprint as to how to compel
plaintiffs to identify stakeholders in class action lawsuits
against their companies.

Implications For Employers

A business confronted with class action litigation absolutely
would want to know if someone other than the plaintiffs themselves
have a financial interest in a "bet-the-company" case. The ruling
in Gbarabe arms employers with a potential strategy to unmask
third-party funders that may have an interest in seeing their
financial demise as a class action defendant. Given that this
ruling stemmed from internationally-based class action litigation
involving solo practitioners, businesses should be cautioned that
courts may not always find litigation funding agreements to be
relevant in determining the adequacy of plaintiffs' counsel.
Nonetheless, the arguments presented by Chevron are instructive in
showing class action defendants how they can attempt to figure out
who is bankrolling litigation battles against them. Finally, this
ruling should serve as a cautionary tale to those third-party
funders who desire anonymity, and ideally result in a chilling
effect of this practice that amounts to tax-incentivized gambling
on class action litigation. Workplace class actions can expect to
see similar challenges to the adequacy of class counsel with
motions to compel the production of litigation funding agreements
in the very near future. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Blouin" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the motion to remand to
state court the case captioned TOR J. BLOUIN SR., ET AL. v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INC., ET AL., SECTION: "A" (3), Civil Action
No. 17-2636 (E.D. La.), finding that the factual allegations did
not link the Blouines' exposure to any vessels being built by
Huntington Ingalls Inc. under contracts with the United States
government.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 19, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/5UhVZj from Leagle.com.

Victor J. Blouin, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC.

Victor J. Blouin, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Jones
Ballay, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Jeffrey A. O'Connell, Nemeroff Law Firm,
Matthew C. Clark, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C.
Hoffman, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC.

Victor J. Blouin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry, Swarr
& Cannella, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC,
Jeffrey A. O'Connell, Nemeroff Law Firm, Matthew C. Clark, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C. Hoffman, Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC.

Nicole C. Blouin, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry, Swarr
& Cannella, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC,
Jeffrey A. O'Connell, Nemeroff Law Firm, Matthew C. Clark, Landry,
Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C. Hoffman, Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daniel E. Oser, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Katie F. Wollfarth, Adams & Reese, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP.

Ameron InternationalDefendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich Simmons
& Brown, PLLC, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret
Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey,
Jr., Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert
Baglio, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Douglas R. Elliott,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Margaret M. Joffe, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Bexar Canyon Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by David A.
Barfield, Pettis, Barfield & Hester P.A.

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

Cajun Company, Defendant, represented by James L. Pate, NeunerPate
& Melissa L. Theriot, NeunerPate.

Century Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Erin Fury
Parkinson, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Jose L. Barro, III,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Shannon Suggs Sale, McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC.

Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Tim Gray,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Tim Gray, Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC
& Michelle Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC,
Erin Percy Tadie, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco,
Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

ExxonMobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC,
Erin Percy Tadie, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, James McClendon Williams, Chehardy, Sherman, Williams,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC & Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC.

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

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Defendant, represented by
John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R.
Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

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

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

Hexion, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Edmund Redmann, Jr.,
Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC, David J. Topping, Bradley
Murchison Kelly & Shea, LLC & Dwight C. Paulsen, III, Bradley,
Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Rodney Whalen, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Daniel S. Roberts,
Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Legacy Vulcan, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Kimberly C. Delk,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Stephanie Noriea
Murphy, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye
N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Kaye N. Courington,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta, Simon, Peragine, Smith
and Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP.

Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles B.
Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid, Liskow & Lewis, Patrick B.
Reagin, Liskow & Lewis, Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Sherman
Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown,
Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Pharmacia LLC, Defendant, represented by Darryl J. Foster,
Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC & David Edmund Redmann, Jr.,
Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Rubicon LLC, Defendant, represented by Tim Gray, Forman, Watkins &
Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Michelle
Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Sank, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence G. Pugh, III, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC & H. Philip Radecker, Jr., Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Service Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Douglas K.
Williams, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P, Christopher A.
Mason, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P & Joseph John Cefalu,
III, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.

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

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Texaco Inc, Defendant, represented by Tim Gray, Forman, Watkins &
Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Michelle
Miller Roy, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Union Carbide Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler,
Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins
& Krutz LLP, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Wyeth Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erin Fury
Parkinson, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC, Jose L. Barro, III,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Shannon Suggs Sale, McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Glen
Mercer, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC & Kourtney Twenhafel
French, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC.

J D Roberts, Defendant, represented by Ronald Dean Church, Jr.,
Dean Church Law, LLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur,
Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC.

PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP, Defendant, represented by Michael
Edward Hill, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Jameson M. Taylor,
Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Leo Raymond McAloon, III,
Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & Tucker Tyler Bohren, Gieger,
Laborde & Laperouse, LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin
Morton, III, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, Ebony Shadae
Morris, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, McNeil James
Kemmerly, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC, Richard Munice
Crump, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC & Shelley K.
Napolitano, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Daniel E. Oser, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey
& Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Brittney Bullock
Ankersen, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Dawn Danna Marullo,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D. Whitworth, Leake
& Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Uniroyal Inc, Third Party Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves
Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Jason K. Elam, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Court Dismisses "Fields" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered that all claims in the
Federal asbestos-related case captioned DONALD FIELDS and SHIRLEY
FIELDS, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, No. 3:12-cv-00905-CRB (N.D. Calif.), are dismissed,
without prejudice, against all Defendants named in the case
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Order dated June 16, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/HvPtLD from Leagle.com.

Donald Fields, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Donald Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Brayton, Brayton
Purcell LLP.

Shirley Fields, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP & Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S.
Johnson, WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth & Katherine Paige Gardiner, WFBM,
LLP dba Walsworth.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Basis to Seal Docs in "Warren", Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. THERESA WARREN, ETC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
2017 NY Slip Op 04889, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York, First Department, held that the Order entered by the
Supreme Court, New York County, on July 20, 2016, which denied
defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s motion to vacate the
special master's recommendations finding that J-M had waived
attorney-client privilege as to a redacted and unredacted
document, and to seal all briefing and exhibits relating to the
motion, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to
grant the motion to the extent of vacating the recommendation's
finding that J-M had waived the attorney-client privilege as to
the unredacted document, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

According to the Appellate Division, J-M showed that it had not
waived the privilege as to the unredacted memo.  J-M continually
objected to the use of the unredacted version.  The public
availability of the document and J-M's lack of success in
obtaining a protective order does not warrant a finding that J-M
waived the privilege.

The Appellate Division concluded that there is no basis to seal
the appellate record and briefs, as the unredacted document is not
included in the record or briefs.

A full-text copy of the decision dated June 15, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/fksTI5 from Leagle.com.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Madina Axelrod
of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Gennaro Savastano of counsel),
for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex Wins Summary Judgment in "Dullinger"
----------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. AMANDA DULLINGER and STEPHEN
DULLINGER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-04-281 ASB (Del. Sup.), Judge Calvin L.
Scott of the Superior Court of Delaware granted Defendant Abex
LLC's motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Amanda Dullinger and Stephen Dullinger claim that Ms.
Dullinger was secondarily exposed to Abex's asbestos containing
brakes while she was a child at her grandfather's garage.

Tammy Allen, Ms. Dullinger's mother, testified that that her
father performed brake work on vehicles in the garage while Ms.
Dullinger was present.  Ms. Allen claims "Apex" brakes were one of
the "top three" brakes used at Froggy's, her father's garage.

Judge Scott pointed out that Ms. Allen could not recall
specifically where the "Apex" brakes were purchased from because
where she purchased the brakes depended on where she was traveling
from.

According to Judge Scott, New Hampshire substantive law applies to
the present action.  The Defendant argues that under New Hampshire
law, the substantial factor test applies, and the Plaintiffs are
unable to show that the Defendant's actions were a "substantial
factor in bringing about the harm."  The core of the Defendant's
argument is that the Plaintiff lacks product identification
evidence because the product identification witness, Ms. Allen,
identified the brakes as "Apex" and not "Abex."  The Defendant
also argues that Abex never manufactured fully assembled passenger
vehicle brake shoes like Ms. Allen identified.

The Court held that even if it determines that "Apex" was
sufficient product identification, viewing the evidence in a light
most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that there are
no genuine issues of material fact.  The Defendant's offered
testimony from a 2014 Abex trial stating that Abex sold brake
linings, and not fully manufactured brakes. The brake linings went
to an assembler, who attached the brake linings to a brake shoe.
These fully assembled brakes were sold by other companies, and as
it appears from the transcript, these companies were not allowed
to use the word "Abex" on their packaging. The Plaintiffs did not
provide any evidence to rebut this assertion, apart from Ms.
Allen's testimony that she believed Abex brakes were fully-
assembled brake shoes. Summary Judgment is therefore appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 14, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/DCx8Lz from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Summary Judgment Award
------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Oregon appellate court
has reversed an award of summary judgment to an asbestos
defendant, saying that the evidence on the record does not
establish that all reasonable factfinders would find that the
defendant transferred its asbestos-related liabilities to a
subsidiary company.

In the June 7 opinion, the Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that
while the reorganization statement suggested that fixed prior
debts were transferred, it does not address the type of tort
liability involved in the underlying case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Order on Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Washington high court
has reversed an intermediate appellate court on specific
jurisdiction in an asbestos case, finding that the trial court was
correct in its assessment that it did not have jurisdiction over
the matter since the plaintiffs had failed to allege any action
taken by the defendant to "purposefully avail itself of the
benefits and protections of the Washington market."

In the June 8 opinion, the Washington Supreme Court said that
while specific jurisdiction is lacking in the case, recently
disclosed evidence of Special Electric's "substantial business
connections" to the state may be relevant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dockyard Worker Heirs Gets EUR9,000
----------------------------------------------------
Times of Malta reported that the heirs of a dockyard worker who
died as a result of exposure to asbestos while at work have been
awarded EUR9,000 in damages.

A court ruled that his fundamental human right to protection of
life and health having been violated by the state.

Maria Rosaria Fenech and her children Karen Lagana and Audrey
Mashburn filed their constitutional action in the First Hall of
the Civil Court presided over by Mr. Justice Mark Chetcuti against
the Chief Government Medical Officer and the Attorney General.

They told the court they were the heirs of John Fenech who had
died in 2011 as a result of asbestosis caused by his exposure to
the substance while working at then state-owned Malta Drydocks.
Mr. Fenech joined Malta Drydocks at the age of 14 and had kept on
working there until he was boarded out at the age of 57.

A representative of the dockyard told the court that
investigations carried out after 1993 had uncovered three types of
asbestos, which were removed. Awareness of the harmful effects of
the substance became rife in Malta in the 1990s, even though the
effects had been scientifically proven as far back as 1960 in the
United Kingdom.

The court ruled that the state was obliged to take appropriate
steps to safeguard the lives of persons within its jurisdiction.

This obligation applied particularly in the case of industrial
activities which by their very nature were dangerous or when the
individual was exposed to asbestos at a workplace which was run by
a public corporation owned and controlled by the government.

Mr Justice Chetcuti concluded that Mr Fenech's death was the
result of a serious omission on the part of the government which
had failed to be updated on the subject of asbestos and which had
also failed to eliminate its use.

Mr Fenech had been exposed to danger which he was unaware of even
though the link between asbestos and illness had been documented
medically from the 1960s.

The court concluded by finding in favour of the heirs and awarded
them EUR9,000 by way of compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 42 North Ayrshire Schools
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Dunn, writing for Daily Record, reported that deadly asbestos
has been discovered in 42 North Ayrshire schools.

The cancer-causing substance was used to fire-proof buildings in
the second half of the 20th century but a report has uncovered
that it still exists in almost half of Scotland's schools.

An 'alarmed' MSP is calling for immediate action from the Scottish
Government to make sure that kids are safe when attending schools.

Of the 42 North Ayrshire schools, almost half -- 19 -- are in
Irvine, Kilwinning and Stevenston -- List MSP Jamie Greene has
called for a plan of action after the revelations emerged at the
weekend.

But North Ayrshire Council has said that safety remains a priority
and the local authority follows a 'strict asbestos inspection and
management regime'.

After asbestos was used widely in buildings, it was later
discovered that inhaling asbestos fibres could result in lung
cancer up to 50 years after exposure.

West Scotland MSP Jamie Greene said: "The report is alarming. 42
of our schools could contain this deadly substance which could
have devastating consequences.

"This is an immediate priority for the Scottish Government -- they
need to assess which schools at risk and remove the threat.

"I will be writing to Deputy First Minister John Swinney and
lodging parliamentary questions on the matter.

"North Ayrshire needs immediate answers from the Scottish
Government and to be made sure that their children are safe
attending these schools.

"If these schools are found to contain asbestos then I would
expect a clear plan of action on the matter. Simply passing the
buck to local authorities is not good enough.

"This matter is devolved to the Scottish Government and they
should be taking the lead on addressing this concern."

Cunninghame South MSP Ruth Maguire added: "The Scottish Government
takes the issue of the handling of asbestos within public
buildings very seriously.

"It has been clear with local authorities about its expectation
that they follow Health and Safety Executive recommendations for
managing asbestos.

North Ayrshire schools with asbestos

   * Abbey Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Annick Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Ardeer Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Ardrossan Academy
   * Auchenharvie Academy
   * Brisbane Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Corrie Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Corsehill Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Dykesmains Primary School
   * Garnock Academy (to be demolished)
   * Glebe Primary School
   * Glencairn Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Hayocks Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Haysholm School -- Irvine Royal Academy
   * James McFarlane School
   * James Reid School
   * Kilmory Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Kilwinning Academy
   * Lamlash Primary School
   * Largs Academy
   * Loudoun Montgomery Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Moorpark Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Pennyburn Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Pirnmill Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Shiskine Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Skelmorlie Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Springside Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St Anthony's Primary School
   * St Bridget's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St John Ogilvie Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St John's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St Luke's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St Mark's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St Mary's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * St Palladius Primary School
   * St Winning's Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Stanecastle School & Early Years Centre
   * West Kilbride Primary School & Early Years Centre
   * Whitehirst Park Primary School
   * Whiting Bay Primary School
   * Winton Primary School

"The Minister for Local Government, Kevin Stewart, has recently
written to all local authorities following the recent Cole Report
on schools to highlight its findings and underline their
obligations in relation to verifying and enforcing building
regulations, technical standards and the inspection processes
which are in place to protect the public.

"Constituents might be concerned that Jamie Greene's first action
is a press release, rather than engaging with the local council to
improve his understanding of things locally."

Inhaling asbestos fibres can lead to the killer disease
mesothelioma -- a lung cancer -- which appears up to 50 years
after exposure.

Research released found the deadly mineral was present in 1638
schools across 30 of Scotland's 32 local authorities.

A North Ayrshire Council spokesman said: "The safety and wellbeing
of our young people and staff is a priority for the council.

"We understand that MSP Jamie Greene's press release may cause
alarm.

"But we would like to ensure all parents, carers, pupils and, of
course, our staff that we take the issue extremely seriously and
take thorough and robust measures to ensure their health is never
compromised.

"We follow a strict asbestos inspection and management regime, in
the relevant schools, in line with statutory guidelines.

"We are also investing heavily in developing new schools across
North Ayrshire and since 2012 have carried out asbestos removal
work in 30 of our existing schools."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Slams BASF's Discovery Demand
----------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reported that a proposed
class accusing BASF Catalysts LLC and its former counsel of
concealing evidence in prior asbestos litigation said that the
recent U.S. Supreme Court case its adversaries are using to
bolster their bid for expanded discovery isn't relevant because
the claims arise from state law, not federal law.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Joseph A. Dickson, the class
said the high court's April decision in Goodyear Tire and Rubber
v. Haeger analyzes the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while the
class's fraudulent concealment claims are rooted in New Jersey's
fraudulent concealment tort.

Defendants BASF and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP have said the
plaintiffs have improperly limited discovery, claiming Cohen
Placitella Roth PC attempted to prevent one plaintiff from
answering deposition questions after another plaintiff gave
allegedly unfavorable answers to questions regarding prior
litigation. The instant suit accuses BASF Catalysts LLC and Cahill
Gordon of destroying evidence that BASF talc contained asbestos.

The Goodyear court, the defendants had claimed in a June 5 letter
to the court, recognized that a fraudulent concealment claim
requires an examination of the merits of the plaintiffs'
underlying case, so therefore the plaintiffs in the instant case
can't sue based on alleged wrongdoing in prior asbestos
litigations, while limiting the discovery into the merits of those
cases.

But the class countered that Goodyear doesn't expand the
defendants' right to discovery, and the merits of the underlying
cases are "not of issue."

"Unlike Goodyear where the Haegars sought discovery sanctions
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the federal
court's inherent authority to sanction discovery misconduct, the
[instant suit seeks] compensatory and punitive damages for the
independent torts of fraudulent concealment and fraud under New
Jersey state law," the case said.

In the Goodyear case, the high court overturned a $2.7 million
fine imposed on Goodyear for what a district court judge had
called deliberate misconduct in failing to produce a key test in a
vehicle crash lawsuit. The standard governing civil procedure
sanctions, the high court ruled, was limited to compensating the
party disadvantaged for the conduct, rather than punishing the
party that committed the misconduct.

Yet the "simple fact" that both cases involve spoliation doesn't
make Goodyear relevant to the scope of discovery in the instant
case, "particularly where the redress sought is completely
different" and has different policy goals, the class said.

In opposing the defendants' move for discovery misconduct
sanctions in May, the class argued that underlying asbestos
lawsuits against BASF from the 1980s are beyond the scope of the
current suit.

The proposed class action against BASF was originally filed in
2011 and dismissed in 2012, before being revived by the Third
Circuit. The suit accuses both BASF and its former representatives
Cahill Gordon of fraud and fraudulent concealment, claiming they
plotted to suppress asbestos lawsuits against BASF by destroying
and manipulating evidence that its talc powder contained asbestos.

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

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher M. Placitella and
Michael Coren of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC.

BASF is represented by Eugene F. Assaf, Michael F. Williams,
Daniel A. Bress and Peter A. Farrell of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and
Justin T. Quinn of Robinson Miller LLC.

The case is Kimberlee Williams et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC et
al., case number 2:11-cv-01754 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer to Pay MSA Extra $2MM in Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania state
court judge has agreed to tack another $2 million in legal fees
and court costs onto a $58 million damages award against North
River Insurance Co. in a dispute over coverage for asbestos-
related product liability claims brought by MSA Safety.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan Hertzberg ruled
June 8 that safety equipment manufacturer MSA Safety Inc. was
entitled to additional fees and costs beyond nearly $12 million
attached to an earlier award.

In a one-page order, he granted the company $1.97 million in
attorneys' fees and nearly $22,000 in supplemental court costs.

The litigation dates to 2010, when North River sued MSA seeking a
declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to cover asbestos
product liability claims under three personal injury policies
together dating from 1980 to 1983. MSA then brought counterclaims
for breach of contract and bad faith.

The case went to a jury trial in September that resulted in a
verdict finding that North River breached the three contracts at
issue. That led to an initial $10.9 million award equaling the
full amount of the contractual damages at issue in the case.

A subsequent bench trial was held in December to resolve MSA's bad
faith claims, and a judge ultimately awarded another $47 million
in damages to the company in February.

That $46.9 million award comprises $30 million in punitive
damages, $11.8 million in attorneys' fees and $5.1 million in
prejudgment interest.

MSA, whose global headquarters are located outside of Pittsburgh,
said it is the largest award ever issued in Pennsylvania for a
case of this nature.

But in a May filing, it said that the earlier fees only accounted
for work its legal team completed through the end of September,
and that significant additional time had been spent on the case
since then to complete the jury trial, prepare for and participate
in the subsequent bench trial, and respond to North River's post-
trial motions.

The fees were incurred not only by its lead counsel in the case
from Reed Smith LLP, but also by attorneys from Adams & Reese LLP
and Gleason & Associates PC, and by contract attorneys and
paralegals.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

North River is represented by Dennis Brown and Joseph Blyskal of
Gordon & Rees LLP.

MSA is represented by George Stewart, Brian Himmel, Robert
Nicholas, Anne Rollins and Michael Sampson of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is North River Insurance Co. v. Mine Safety Appliances
Co. et al., case number GD-10-007432, in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Exposed to Asbestos Blows Whistle
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Post reported that when general contractor Don
Garrett was invited to bid on plumbing work in Agassiz's Kent
Prison in 2008, he had no idea that such routine work would expose
him to asbestos and touch off a nine-year battle that would cast
him on the national stage as a whistleblower, make it impossible
to obtain bonding, and cost him future contracts. He says the
exposure to asbestos has compromised his health, and the
government has made his life a "nightmare."

Garrett, a contractor with three decades of experience, and his
team reported for work on the 30-year-old maximum security
Corrections facility on May 29, 2009. The job, replacing sinks and
toilets, commissioned in 2008 by Public Works Canada, had already
been delayed. It was expected to take until June 4, but Garrett
says that the prison and Public Works imposed many delays that he
only later discovered were related to asbestos.

During the first weeks after he and his crew had gained access to
the prison worksite in late May of 2009, Garrett took the lead.
Without using any kind of breathing mask or other protection, he
removed gaskets by grinding and using a wire brush on them. The
process created a lot of dust that swirled around him as he
worked. He and his crew, all working without masks or other
protective equipment, took in what he would later describe as
"lungs full" of the toxic material.

"The tender documents made no mention of asbestos in the
plumbing," Garrett told Postmedia. "Consequently, my crew and I
unknowingly exposed ourselves and others to high concentrations of
asbestos while removing and rebuilding plumbing valves that
contained asbestos."

Asbestos, widely used in Canadian construction in decades past, is
now known to be a carcinogen. Strict building and construction
safety protocols and precautions are required when work is done on
a site where asbestos exposure is possible. Asbestos can cause
mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the pleural tissue around the
lungs, often occurring many years after exposure.

What Garrett didn't know in May 2009 as he drilled into the
structure of Kent Prison was that a report five years earlier had
warned about the prevalence of asbestos in the building materials
of the institution -- and that prison guards had also raised the
alarm.

The March 2004 report is titled "Asbestos Containing Material
Survey Report, Kent Maximum Security Institution, Agassiz, British
Columbia, Prepared for Public Works and Government Services Canada
and Correctional Services Canada."

Produced by Pottinger Gaherty Environmental Consultants, it
confirms the existence of asbestos-containing materials throughout
the facility at Kent, noting "once the materials have been
installed they are hidden from plain view and impossible to find
without dismantling the system. Therefore . . . abatement
procedures should be exercised when this material is disturbed or
removed during service work."

The 2004 report cites Mike Cuccione as the consulting firm's
contact at Kent. Garrett says it was Cuccione who invited Garrett
to bid on the 2009 work and who remained involved in the interface
between Garrett's company on one side and Kent and Public Works on
the other. As someone involved in the report warning about
asbestos in the prison, Garrett says, Cuccione should have known
the contractor needed to be warned in advance of doing any work at
Kent. Postmedia made repeated requests to Kent Prison for an
interview with Cuccione, who is still involved at Kent providing
on-site escort and supervision for contractors at the prison, but
received no response to these requests.

Correctional officers at Kent were actively concerned about
possible asbestos exposure around this time, as well. In April of
2013, Gord Robertson, then the Pacific regional president of the
Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, told the CBC's Julie
Ireton: "Officers at the time were concerned their feelings of
being exposed were being minimized. They felt their reporting went
basically unheard."

A WorkSafeBC report dated Aug. 31, 2009, says that Garrett first
suspected asbestos exposure when he tried to purchase replacements
for the gaskets he had been working on with a wire brush and was
told by the supplier they were no longer available because they
were made primarily of asbestos.

Although he had suspicions about asbestos exposure early on in his
work at Kent, Garrett learned definitively about the existence of
the 2004 report only after many years of trying without success to
get the government to acknowledge that it had failed to properly
warn him and his crew about asbestos dangers in the work they were
contracted to perform. He had arranged for the WorkSafeBC
inspection in August of 2009, and used various internal government
channels, beginning with complaints to Public Works and Kent
Prison during 2009 and including a complaint in 2010 to the Office
of the Procurement Ombudsman, all to no avail.

He didn't know that, by assuming a "whistleblower" role, he would
face yet another overlay of problems that would presage years of
procedural battles that would effectively make it impossible for
him to retain bonding status and thus shut him out of further work
as a contractor.

"My efforts to obtain change orders due to asbestos caused delays
(in the job), which constituted a cardinal change of the contract
and met with further delays, denials and cover-up from government,
locally and in Ottawa," says Garrett. "The result of this long
nightmare is that my company has lost its bonding status and has
been unofficially blacklisted. I was put out of business by the
federal government after 30 years of contracting and, as a bonus,
my lungs are loaded with asbestos."

Garrett's work at Kent was completed in mid-December 2009, but his
claims for additional expenses created by the delays over the
asbestos and a number of other issues identified by the employer
are still in dispute and, eight years later, he still has not been
provided with a formal notice of completion.

Because of the unresolved issues with Public Works, Garrett says,
he has lost the ability to obtain bonding and thus cannot take on
new contracts. He believes he is being punished for blowing the
whistle about the asbestos content of the plumbing fixtures he was
removing and replacing. Although Garrett and his crew were told
that some of the delays they experienced were connected to
concerns about traces of asbestos content in linoleum at the
prison, and about possible lead paint concerns, they were not
warned in advance, as required by law, of asbestos within the
plumbing fixtures they were engaged to remove and replace.

Garrett had two CAT scan tests soon after he became concerned
about possible asbestos damage, and was told the tests showed a
spot on his lungs, but he has not followed up with further tests.
He knows asbestos damage can take more than a decade to show up
and he is reluctant to have more radiation exposure from
diagnostics.

Contacted for comment in May, Corrections Canada spokesman Jean-
Paul Lorieau did not answer specific questions about the number of
federal prisons in B.C. known to have asbestos, whether there have
been any reports of asbestos exposure, or even whether he could
confirm asbestos exposure at Kent in 2009 or steps taken in
response.

In March of 2011, Garrett filed a complaint with the Public Sector
Integrity Commissioner, Mario Dion. The commissioner is mandated
to intervene when public-sector workers report government
misconduct and are then punished as a consequence of their
whistleblowing.

After a process with the commissioner that once again saw Garrett
waiting through long delays, and the appointment of three
different investigators, Garrett received a letter from Dion in
April of 2013, dismissing his complaint, saying: "I believe the
concerns and issues raised by you and or any other parties
involved in the construction project were appropriately dealt with
by the proper organizations."

In the same letter, Dion revealed the existence of the 2004
report.

The commissioner's report effectively rejected Garrett's
complaints about his treatment by Public Works, Corrections
Canada, and the Office of the Procurement Ombudsman.

Although disappointing for Garrett in his effort to have his
exposure acknowledged and his whistleblowing validated, it was the
Dion letter that revealed the existence of the 2004 report on
asbestos exposure dangers at Kent Prison. That report should have
led, Garrett argues, to Public Works and Kent informing him of the
existence of the report and of these dangers before he ever
started work at the prison.

A WorkSafeBC consultation document dated Feb. 20, 2014, supports
Garrett's claims about asbestos exposure and about Public Works
officials not being forthcoming with the information about
asbestos at the prison. The document reads, in part: "Don Garrett
was not told that the gaskets contained asbestos even though the
survey was conducted in 2004. In 2009, when (a WorkSafeBC
inspector) visited Kent Prison, the 2004 survey was not shared
with (the inspector) by Public Works."

On Oct. 16, 2014, Garrett and his contracting company filed a
civil suit in Supreme Court of B.C. in Chilliwack against the
federal Minister of Public Works and Government Services, alleging
breach of contract and negligence. The suit, which has not yet
been resolved, asks for damages and costs.

Pierre-Alain Bujot, a spokesman for Public Works, the government
body that oversees repair contracts at federal prisons, said on
June 12 that his office would have no comment because the matter
is currently before the courts.

As a last resort, Garrett took his concerns to Parliament this
spring. In March, he testified before the House Standing Committee
on Government Operations and Estimates about his experience with
the Public Servants' Integrity Commission. He testified that:

"In all of the two years trying to communicate with (the
commission), I probably had less than two hours of conversation
with them. They kept me in the dark nearly all the time regarding
the status of my case."

Today, the standing committee is expected to table its report on
the workings of the Public Servants' Disclosure Protection Act,
which is designed to protect those who blow the whistle when
governments don't play by the rules, and which created the
Integrity Commission. Garrett and critics of the way Canada deals
with whistleblowers will be watching with interest to see whether
the standing committee recommends significant changes.

Alan Cutler, who came to national prominence as a civil servant
who revealed government misconduct in 2004 -- revelations that led
to the notorious "Sponsorship Scandal" -- will be one of those
interested observers.

"The Garrett situation is not unique," he told The Sun at the end
of May. "I know of several federal employees who were fired for
whistleblowing, and lots more who were punished."

David Hutton, a whistleblower advocate who once served on an
advisory committee for the Public Sector Integrity Commission and
stepped down amidst controversies resulting from his public
criticism of the commission, thinks the Public Sector Employees
Disclosure Act should be "completely re-written." He also calls
for the current commissioner, Joe Friday, to be replaced.

Kathleen Ruff, a critic of Canada's past involvement in asbestos
mining and who is familiar with the Garrett case, has called on
the standing committee to "condemn the wrongdoing of Public Works
Canada and the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
in their dealings with Garrett and call on the Canadian government
to give Garrett an apology and compensation for the harm and
injustice he has suffered at the government's hands."

She also called for a "fundamental overhaul of the Office of the
Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to make it truly independent
and effective."

Ruff and other critics may have something to celebrate when the
standing committee delivers its report, judging from what Erin
Weir, NDP MP and committee co-chair, told Postmedia in an
interview May 31.

"We'll be proposing substantial changes to whistleblower
legislation," Weir told Postmedia. "MPs from all parties agree on
this. We want whistleblower protection for contractors who work
for government. Whistleblowers perform a public service."

Committee chairwoman Liberal Yasmin Ratansi declined to comment
for this story, saying through a media aide that she would have no
comment until the report was issued.

Garrett thought he was performing a public service when he went
public about asbestos dangers to him, his workers, guards and
prisoners at Kent. It may be years, if at all, before he sees the
consequences of his asbestos exposure. But, like others concerned
about how whistleblowers are treated in Canada, as early as this
week he will be watching for the report from Weir's standing
committee.

"I just want an end to government persecution of me and other
whistleblowers," Garrett said. "I hope I can put my life and
business back together."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employee's Wife May Sue for Her Own Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Deschenaux, writing for Society for Human Resource
Management, reported that the widow of an oil company employee who
claimed she developed mesothelioma -- a type of cancer -- after
being exposed to asbestos fibers that her husband carried home on
his work clothing can sue the company, the California Court of
Appeal ruled.

The duty of employers to exercise ordinary care in their use of
asbestos includes preventing exposure to asbestos that can be
carried by the bodies and clothing of onsite workers, the court
said. When it is reasonably foreseeable that workers, their
clothing or personal effects will carry asbestos from the
workplace to a household, employers have a duty to take reasonable
care to prevent this means of transmission, the court concluded.

Wanda Beckering's late husband Frank worked at Shell's Wilmington
and Dominguez facilities, primarily as a machinist, from 1954
until 1992, when he retired. He died in 2009. The Beckerings were
married for 60 years. She laundered his work clothes but never
visited his workplace.

On Aug. 14, 2013, Beckering filed suit against numerous
defendants, including Shell, alleging she developed mesothelioma
as a result of exposure to asbestos brought home on her husband's
clothing while he worked at Shell's facilities.

On Jan. 10, 2014, Shell filed a motion for summary judgment,
seeking to have the case dismissed before trial. It asserted that
it owed no duty of care to Beckering. On March 10, 2014, the trial
court granted the motion, and the appellate court subsequently
affirmed. That decision was appealed to the California Supreme
Court.

On Dec. 1, 2016, in another case, the state Supreme Court held for
the first time that an employers' duty regarding asbestos could
extend to people who lived with the employee. The ruling -- which
expanded what had been accepted as the scope of an employer's
responsibility regarding asbestos -- found that when it's
reasonably foreseeable that workers will carry asbestos from the
workplace to household members, employers must take reasonable
steps to prevent this transfer.

On March 22, 2017, the California Supreme Court sent the Beckering
case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to reconsider the
issues in light of the high court's ruling. This time, the appeal
court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment,
concluding that Beckering was entitled to a trial on her claim.

That exposure to asbestos is harmful to human health has been
known to large-scale users of asbestos since the 1970s, and the
"common sense reality" is that asbestos fibers could be carried on
the person or clothing of employees to their homes and could be
inhaled by household members, the appeal court noted. Businesses
that use asbestos have had significant time to take preventive
measures. The appeal court emphasized that an employer's duty to
prevent take-home exposure extends only to members of a worker's
household -- those who live with the worker and are foreseeably in
close and sustained contact with the worker over a significant
period.

Beckering v. Shell Oil Co., Calif. Ct. App., No. B256407 (June 2,
2017).

Professional Pointer: Accepting that an employer owes a duty to
members of an employee's household to take reasonable steps to
protect them from asbestos exposure is only the first step in
finding an employer liable for a family member's illness. The
household member must also show that the employer failed to take
those reasonable steps and that the failure caused the family
member's illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Asbestos Statute Puts Onus on Owners
--------------------------------------------------------
Indian Newslink reported that residential property investors have
been urged to understand the new rules in dealing with asbestos or
risk a costly fine.

Under new WorkSafe legislation, the updated Management and Removal
of Asbestos Act, rental property owners are now responsible for
identifying and dealing with asbestos in tenanted homes.

Matt Mason, Managing Director, Betta Inspect It said that rental
property owners are regarded as PCBU's (a person conducting a
business or undertaking).

Dangerous material

Asbestos is the single biggest cause of deaths from work-related
disease.

On average about 170 people die every year from asbestos-related
diseases. Breathing in airborne asbestos fibres is a serious risk
to health -- once the fibres are breathed in, they lodge in the
lungs and may cause asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Mr Mason mentioned the following:

Landlords must ensure that they have checked rental properties for
asbestos and if found, know it is current state and put in place
an asbestos management plan for any stable asbestos that does not
need to be removed immediately.

Property owners must make tenants aware if the house has asbestos
and what state it is in. In most instances, it can be in a good
state but wear and tear needs to be monitored. For example, if a
vinyl floor with asbestos deteriorates it can cause dust -- which
can cause harm.

The first step is pretty easy in that 8 out of 10 houses built
pre-mid 1980s had asbestos -- whether that be in ceilings, walls
or floor.

Property Inspection

The next step is to get a property inspection from a qualified
inspector, who will identify the asbestos, it's current state and
recommend the best approach to managing the removal of any
asbestos that's in deteriorating state.

It sounds costly but it is actually not when it comes to health
risks associated with asbestos, it's better to deal with it early.

The one-off test is done by a property inspector, who takes
samples which are analysed by an accredited laboratory for the
presence of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Polaris Recalls 13,000 Bikes with Asbestos Parts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Cormack, writing for The Daily Adviser, reported that a
nationwide recall of 13,000 off-road vehicles is to be launched by
car manufacturer Polaris Industries, after an investigation
revealed asbestos-laden parts in at least 12 models.

The recall of certain Polaris youth quad bikes, sold in Australia
and New Zealand, was prompted by recent testing in the US, which
identified asbestos in brake pads, brake shoes, gaskets and
washers in some models.

"Polaris is recalling certain youth all-terrain vehicles [ATVs]
and associated service parts in Australia and select other
countries because we believe they contain asbestos, which is
banned in these jurisdictions," Polaris country manager Alan
Collins said.

"Polaris has been working and continues to work collaboratively
with the appropriate authorities in each jurisdiction, including
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to quickly
develop the appropriate remedy for these vehicles."

About 13,000 Polaris quad bikes are believed to have been supplied
in Australia since 2001.

Models affected by the recall include the Scrambler 50, Predator
50, Outlaw 50 and the Ace 150 produced between 2001 to 2017.

Use or importation of asbestos has been prohibited in Australia
since 2004, although the ACCC understands Polaris only recently
became aware of the presence of asbestos in some of its quad
bikes.

"Fortunately, the advice we have currently received indicates that
the presence of asbestos in the quad bike parts is unlikely to
present a safety risk while riding the quad bike," ACCC acting
chairwoman Delia Rickard said.

"Nonetheless we are treating this issue extremely seriously and
working closely with Polaris to gather all relevant information
that enables a fast, efficient remediation of any bikes that
contain these parts."

Ms Rickard said any asbestos was more likely to present a safety
risk to owners who conducted their own mechanical work, and to
professionals who repair and service quad bikes.

Mr Collins said third-party expert testing had concluded that
riding the affected quad bikes "does not result in asbestos
exposure to the rider, and third-party expert review has concluded
that servicing gaskets found in the affected vehicles does not
pose a threat to health".

Other countries, including the US and Canada -- which do not have
similar bans on asbestos -- have not been affected by the recall.

In 2015, the ACCC issued a recall on asbestos-laden counterfeit
brake pads designed to fit Toyota Hilux utes and Hiace vans, after
it was discovered they were being sold illegally in Australia.

Before that -- in 2012 -- almost 25,000 Great Wall and Chery
Chinese cars were recalled by Ateco Automotive when asbestos was
found in the engine and exhaust gaskets.

Chief executive officer of the Motor Traders' Association of
Australia Richard Dudley said it was concerning to hear of yet
another asbestos-related recall.

"Polaris vehicles predominantly end up in regional and rural
Australia land holdings on farms. Obviously after the initial
warranty period, farmers are quite adept at maintaining their own
machinery and tend to do so. So that is of significant concern,"
he said.

"The secondary issue that concerns us is the need to tighten
importation rules . . . this highlights an issue we've had about
government proposals to allow for the personal importation of
vehicles that are not destined for the Australian market."

The ACCC will trigger the Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities
(HWSA) Imported Materials with Asbestos Working Group Rapid
Response Protocol.

Triggering the protocol ensures all relevant agencies work
together to implement a whole-of-government response.

Consumers who own a recalled Polaris quad bike are encouraged to
contact their nearest authorised Polaris dealer to arrange the
safe replacement of affected parts.

Affected Polaris models:

    * Scrambler 50
    * Predator 50,
    * Outlaw 50
    * Scrambler 90
    * Predator 90
    * Outlaw 90
    * Outlaw 110
    * Sportsman 90
    * Sportsman 110
    * Phoenix 200
    * Sawtooth 200
    * Ace 150 produced between 2001 to 2017

Customers with concerns should contact Polaris directly. The
formal recall notice with further information will published as
soon as it is available on www.productsafety.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Exposure at Airport Affects 120 Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Barer and Kylie McGivern, writing for KXAN.com, reported
that about 120 city of Austin employees were exposed to asbestos
during 2016 airport office renovations, despite some workers
voicing concerns that the potentially dangerous building material
could cause contamination during construction, a KXAN
investigation has uncovered.

The exposure happened during February and June 2016 floor
renovations in Austin-Bergstrom International Airport's
Maintenance Complex Building, which is separate from the passenger
terminals and not open to the public. The maintenance building
contains offices and houses dozens of staff, including maintenance
administrators, plumbers, carpenters, cleaners and police at the
time, according to city records.

Three aviation maintenance workers, who spoke with KXAN on a
condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, say the asbestos
contamination may well have been avoided if their concerns were
taken more seriously. Also, airport management may not have
followed all recommended asbestos control procedures prior to
renovating the offices.

"The people who run the airport put people in danger that they
knew about, put them in hazardous areas and told them that they
would be safe," said one employee present for the February
renovations. "I am concerned for everybody's health who was in the
building."

In response to KXAN's investigation, the city of Austin released a
statement saying it is committed to the "health and safety of all
employees," and it is "continuing to investigate the circumstances
surrounding this incident."

"The City of Austin and the Department of Aviation would never
intentionally put its employees at risk," according to the city's
June 16 prepared statement. "The City is committed to improving
internal processes, training and communication to ensure our high
standards are met for a safe working environment for all staff."

Medical Surveillance for Life

One employee said he saw workers ripping up carpet and tile and
exposing black mastic, which is industrial adhesive, that could
contain asbestos in February 2016, he said.

"Stop immediately and mark this area off as 'do not disturb,'" the
employee said he stated at the time. He then took his concerns
about the black mastic to ABIA management, but the concerns went
nowhere, he said.

Days after that employee elevated the issue to aviation
management, he saw employees working on carpet renovations again,
he said. The city did not stop its scheduled February and June
renovations, despite worker concerns taken to management about
asbestos contamination, according to interviews and city records.

The Department of Aviation initially denied the accounts of
workers who spoke with KXAN.

In two separate emails, the Department of Aviation, a city agency,
first told KXAN "no employees" brought asbestos concerns to
management. But as we uncovered more evidence, and informed each
city council member and member of the Austin Airport Advisory
Commission of our findings, the city changed its story. In a later
email, the city admitted two employees did speak up about asbestos
concerns at the beginning of the renovations.

The Department of Aviation said it was relying on a 2004 building
survey that did not show asbestos was present in the work areas,
says public information officer Jim Halbrook.

Halbrook broke down the city's timeline of events. In February and
June of 2016 the city performed renovations with guidance from the
2004 survey. In response to mold concerns after a May 2016 flood,
the city performed testing in the Maintenance Complex over the
summer. The first retesting results came back in July showing
asbestos in the building. Since the presence of asbestos
conflicted with the 2004 survey, the city conducted a second test
on the air that showed no asbestos in August, he said. Keep in
mind, the air test was conducted several months after at least one
worker brought concerns about asbestos contamination in February.

"I am concerned for everybody's health who was in the building."
It wasn't until Sept. 29, 2016, that the Department of Aviation
sent a notice to the city's Building Services Department notifying
it of an "accidental disturbance" of asbestos-containing material
and the need for "expedited decontamination."

Also in late September, ABIA alerted 120 staff members about the
contamination. The employees were advised to fill out medical
surveys, according to city records.

Workers who spoke with KXAN said their years in the construction
industry helped them recognize the black mastic as a potentially
dangerous substance.

"I've seen this stuff before. It looks like black tar, which had
dried long ago and was very brittle, and when they scraped the
floor and break this stuff up, part of it becomes dust and gets
into the air," the employee said. "When it gets into the air, it
affects everybody in the building, not just those guys working on
it."

Eight city employees working directly on the carpet renovations
have been provided medical surveillance for life, the city said.
KXAN has not found any instances of employees with medical issues
directly related to the 2016 asbestos exposure.

Asbestos Abatement

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral with qualities that make
it ideal for construction materials ranging from insulation to
cement, adhesive and tile. Today, asbestos is widely restricted
because prolonged exposure can cause cancer, lung damage and
chronic respiratory illness. The onset of asbestos-related illness
can come years or decades after exposure.

There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, according to state
records.

Any activity that can disturb asbestos in building materials is
regulated by the Texas Asbestos Health Protection Rules. According
to those guidelines, a public entity must perform an asbestos
survey before starting any renovation project that may disturb
asbestos.

"In February was when the carpet replacement was done in the
offices in a corner of that building that our previous study had
said did not have asbestos in that area," Halbrook said in an on-
camera interview in late May.

KXAN spoke with Halbrook after multiple requests to interview the
Department of Aviation Executive Director Jim Smith and other
management officials were denied.

But even when a survey doesn't note asbestos in a certain area, if
a worker encounters something that appears suspicious it should be
tested, said Paul Dehlinger, an asbestos expert and consultant.
Dehlinger said it is not uncommon for building surveys to miss
some asbestos.

"If something looks like it was missed or uncovered during
construction activities, the competent person should stop work,
notify his supervisor, which that supervisor would then take it up
the chain of command to the building owner to bring another
licensed consultant to come and retest," Dehlinger explained.

But that did not initially happen, according to city records and
conversations with Department of Aviation employees.

It also seems that aviation management missed steps prescribed by
the 2004 asbestos survey they were using.

Following KXAN's investigation, the city said it is continuing to
investigate the asbestos contamination. If violations of the Texas
asbestos rules are found, they can carry a $10,000 penalty for
each day the violation occurred or up to two years in jail,
according to state statute.

The 2004 survey also says it should be accompanied by a management
report to explain what work can be performed, if any. And if that
report isn't provided, the survey user should submit a work
request or asbestos inspection request prior to any work that
could disturb asbestos. We filed a public information request for
any of those records -- but none exist for the timeframe in
question.

Following the asbestos exposure, the Department of Aviation said
it changed its policy for renovations. Now, the city said it has
an environmental study conducted anywhere it is planning to
perform work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Liable to Pre-1972 GM Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul R. Wallace of the Superior Court of Delaware held that
the insurance policies for which OneBeacon Insurance Company and
Continental Casualty Company are (or may be) responsible were not
excluded from the asset transfer between General Motors and Motors
Liquidation Trust DIP Lenders Trust during General Motors'
bankruptcy.

Judge Wallace determined that those policies can be triggered.  He
further determined that the Suit Limitations Clause of the lower
level policies does not bar Motors Liquidation Trust's suit under
the OneBeacon and Continental policies.  He opined that all of the
remaining pre-1972 asbestos claims for which Motors Liquidation
Trust seeks coverage, under the circumstances here, are one
"occurrence" and that allocation must be done on a pro rata basis.

General Motors and Royal Insurance Company had a longstanding
insurance relationship, beginning in approximately 1921 and
continuing through September 1, 1993.2 On August 18, 1954, Royal
Insurance issued RTP 060000 to General Motors.

OneBeacon Insurance Company issued to General Motors three excess
policies insurance policies, between November 1, 1969, and March
21, 1972. The OneBeacon Policies followed form to Royal
Catastrophe Excess Policy RLA 35. RLA 35, in turn, followed form
to RTP 060000.

Continental Casualty Company purportedly issued two excess
insurance policies from 1969 to 1971 to General Motors. These two
policies covered to General Motors from March 21, 1969, to March
21, 1970 and from March 21, 1970, to March 21, 1971. The policies
had $1 million limits in excess of $50 million. Like OneBeacon's,
Motors contends Continental's policies follow form to RLA 35,
albeit through Home Insurance Company's Policy #HEC 97915 82.

Continental, if it must, joins all of OneBeacon's summary judgment
motions except OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment regarding
transfer. The Court puts it that way because Continental has
posited that Motors has not provided sufficient evidence to show
Continental's policies follow form to the underlying Royal
policies and therefore has failed to establish it has any
liability here.

Here, Motors Liquidation Trust DIP Lenders Trust sued several
excess carriers, seeking coverage for underlying asbestos claims
brought against General Motors. Accordingly, the Parties' filed
various summary judgement motions on OneBeacon and Continental's
liability, and the proper framework under which to evaluate and
allocate Motors Liquidation Trust's claims.

A. Transfer of Rights

OneBeacon filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Motors
Liquidation Company did not transfer its rights under the
OneBeacon insurance policies to Motors Liquidation Company DIP
Lenders Trust.  OneBeacon argued that its insurance policies were
excluded from the asset transfer between General Motors and Motors
Liquidation Trust during General Motors' bankruptcy.

Motors Liquidation Trust contended that it was "assigned the
rights to prosecute, and receive the benefit of, whatever rights
[MLC] had against OneBeacon" as of December 15, 2011. Motors
Liquidation Trust said that the policies were properly transferred
from General Motors, and that OneBeacon still retains adopted
responsibility under those policies.

On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
and as a part of its Chapter 11, General Motors sold its assets to
New General Motors, which was renamed Motors Liquidation Company.
All pre-1986 insurance policies were not included in this initial
transfer to Motors Liquidation Company and remained held by
General Motors.

On March 29, 2011, the bankruptcy court approved Motors
Liquidation Company's amended Chapter 11 Plan, which required that
Motors Liquidation Company's rights under any pre-1986 insurance
policies also be transferred to Motors Liquidation Trust, but
OneBeacon was not excluded from this transfer.

On December 15, 2011, Motors Liquidation Company formed Motors
Liquidation Trust to avoid abandonment of assets held by Motors
Liquidation Company and to hold and administer the assets in a
manner to benefit the DIP Lenders via the Trust Agreement. After
Motors Liquidation Company created Motors Liquidation Trust, it
executed the separate Assignment Agreement to transfer and assign
assets to Motors Liquidation Trust.

OneBeacon was not initially on Exhibit A of the initial Trust
Agreement as Motors Liquidation Company was precluded from suing
OneBeacon pursuant to a Standstill Agreement. When that Standstill
Agreement expired on January 17, 2012, Motors added OneBeacon to
the Complaint. Upon realizing the unintentional omission, the
Trust Administrator amended the Trust Agreement so as to include
the OneBeacon policies.

The Court concluded that the amendment by the Trust Administrator
only served to cure any ambiguity, omission, or inconsistency in
the Trust Agreement. As such, the clear, unambiguous language of
the Assignment Agreement transfers all "Pre-1986 Insurance
Policies" from Motors Liquidation Company to Motors Liquidation
Trust. No doubt, OneBeacon's is a pre-1986 insurance policy.
Accordingly, the Court ascertained that the rights under the
OneBeacon policies were property assigned to Motors Liquidation
Trust. Thus, Motors Liquidation Company assumed all rights to
prosecute and receive the benefits of the OneBeacon insurance
policies.

As such, the Court granted Motors Liquidation Company DIP Lender's
Trust's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Transfer of Rights,
and denied OneBeacon's Motion for Summary Judgment on Transfer of
Rights

B. Trigerring OneBeacon and Continental's Policies

OneBeacon and Continental asserted that enforcement "as written"
requires the Court to find that after December 31, 1971
"occurrence-based" coverage under RTP 06000 was no longer
available, because Endorsement 15 converted it to
"occurrence-reported" coverage. They argue that because none of
the claims at issue in this case were reported prior to
Endorsement 15 taking effect, none of the claims trigger RTP
06000.

Motors Liquidation Trust countered by asserting that the Michigan
Court of Appeals already decided this precise issue regarding
coverage under Endorsement 15. Motors Liquidation Trust claimed
that the Court did so in its decision regarding Royal's coverage.
Motors Liquidation Trust contended that these pre-1972 policies
were, in fact, triggered because they were occurrence-based.
Motors Liquidation Trust argued that OneBeacon and Continental
attempted to "improperly expand Judge Silverman's [2015] ruling"
when they say the reporting dates of the claims at issue preclude
coverage.

The Court said that the arguments that OneBeacon and Continental
made in their present motions were identical to Royal's in the
prior Michigan action regarding the application of Endorsement 15.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found the underlying Royal policies
to be "occurrence-based."

The Court previously examined Endorsement 15 in the context of
post-1971 policies. But that prior decision resolving those
arguments did not discuss the effect on the pre-1972 policies --
the policies at issue here.

The Court found that Endorsement 15 does not preclude or obviate
the trigger of coverage under RTP 06000 for OneBeacon and
Continental. RTP 06000 was triggered by the claims at issue here.
Those claims, in turn, triggered Royal's coverage. And they now
trigger OneBeacon and Continental's.

Even if the Court were to find the Michigan decision non-binding,
the Court held that the rules of construction employed in Royal do
not change. The Court said that looking at the language of
Endorsement 15, the Court was in accord with the Michigan Court of
Appeals. The Court said that the plain language of Endorsement 15
"fails to delineate any change to prior policies that were in
effect." Endorsement 15 went into effect on December 31, 1971, and
altered no policy in effect prior to that time. OneBeacon and
Continental's "occurrence-based" policies were in effect prior to
December 31, 1971. And those policies were not converted to
"occurrence-reported" under Endorsement 15's plain language.

Accordingly, Motors Liquidation Company DIP Lender's Trust's
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Trigger is granted. OneBeacon
and Continental's Motions for Summary Judgment on Trigger are
denied.

C. Suit Limitations

OneBeacon and Continental argued that the Suit Limitations Clause
incorporated into the Royal policies precludes Motors Liquidation
Trust from bringing this suit because it is time barred. Motors
Liquidation Trust contended that the suit is not time barred,
because the Suit Limitations Clause only applies to first-party
coverage, not the third-party liability insurance here.

The Court found that this suit is not precluded by RLA35's Suit
Limitations Clause, because RLA35 is a package policy that
provided General Motors with both first- and third-party liability
insurance. Because of its dual nature, certain parts of the policy
apply to first-party coverage; others apply to third-party
coverage.

The Court cited that Michigan law prohibits insurance policy
provisions that have unattainable conditions allowing the right to
file a suit to expire before it accrues. If a contract has a
provision that cannot be met, then it cannot stand. Here, having
the Suit Limitations Clause apply to third-party liability claims
could require something that is impossible for Motors Liquidation
Trust to do. Accordingly, OneBeacon and Continental's Motions for
Summary Judgment based upon the Suit Limitations Clause are
denied.

D. Number of Occurrences

The parties disagreed on the definition of "occurrence" as it
pertains to policy coverage. Motors Liquidation Trust alleged that
the Court's prior decisions make the "cause test" the law of the
case. There, Motors Liquidation Trust contended that the Court
found that when a company makes a product which causes an injury
or systemic injuries, there is only one occurrence. Essentially,
all 80,000 outstanding asbestos claims funnel back to one
occurrence: when the injurious products were manufactured.

Conversely, OneBeacon argued that each claim is distinct.
OneBeacon said that claimants were exposed to at least a dozen
different types of asbestos-containing products, suffered exposure
at different locations, and were all exposed to asbestos on
different start and end dates. OneBeacon pointed out also that
General Motors and Royal treated each asbestos claim as a separate
occurrence during the parties' relationship. And so, OneBeacon
said that Motors Liquidation Trust must take on General Motors'
prior practice, General Motors' previous arguments thereon, and is
estopped from now arguing to the contrary.

The Court found that there is a clear distinction between the
parties' pre-1972 and post-1972 conduct. The Court does not agree
with OneBeacon that Motors Liquidation Trust is estopped from
arguing the pre-1972 claims are one "occurrence" and the Court
finds in these circumstances they are one "occurrence."

Therefore, Motors Liquidation Company DIP Lender's Trust's Renewed
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Number of Occurrences
is granted. OneBeacon and Continental's Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment on the Number of Occurrences are denied.

E. Determining Allocation

The Parties also disagreed on how to determine allocation. Motors
Liquidation Trust alleged that the RLA35 language, to which
OneBeacon follows, requires "all sums" allocation under Michigan
law. OneBeacon argued that the language calls for "pro rata," or
"time on the risk" allocation.

Michigan courts have, on different occasions, followed "all sums"
and "pro rata" allocation -- depending on the contract language
used. The overwhelming majority of cases, however, consider
Michigan a "pro rata" state. Michigan law requires an insurance
policy to be read as a whole, so that all of the policy's
provisions make sense. The policies here clearly state that
coverage will be provided for injuries that occur during the
policy period. Nothing more. As such, allocation must be done on a
pro rata basis.

The case is MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY DIP LENDERS TRUST,
Plaintiff, v. ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants; C.A.
No. N11C-12-022 PRW CCLD  (Del. Super. Ct.).

A full-text copy of Judge Wallace's Opinion and Order dated
June 8, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/kPB2f3 from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $26.6MM Libby Costs at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$26.6 million
at March 31, 2017, for response costs related to a vermiculite
mine and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as well as at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area.  This RI/FS
will determine the specific areas requiring remediation and will
identify possible remedial action alternatives.  Possible remedial
actions are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land
use restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.  Grace expects
the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed in 2018 or
2019.  When meaningful new information becomes available, Grace
will reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for remediation
of the mine and surrounding area and adjust its reserves
accordingly.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these
investigation and remediation activities, and has recorded a
liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a
probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.
These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,
to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is
necessary, the estimable cost of response actions.  Response
actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and
replacement with clean fill.  The EPA may commence additional
investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby
vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge of
prior and current operations and site conditions, that liability
for remediation at such other sites is probable.

"Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are
currently estimable for the Libby mine and surrounding area, and
at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at March 31,
2017, and December 31, 2016, was US$26.6 million and US$31.2
million, respectively.  It is probable that Grace's ultimate
liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed
current estimates by material amounts."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 111 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces 111 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief in connection
with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its
electric generation plants prior to 1985, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced
numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement
related to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate to damages for
bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985.  As of March 31, 2017, there were 111 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to
US$29 million, and 58 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to US$16 million.  Based on Duke
Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate
resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the
amount claimed.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c4Ju9G


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had $506MM Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$506 million at March 31, 2017, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$506 million at March 31, 2017 and
US$512 million at December 31, 2016.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the
range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2036,
are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated
inflation.  In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-
term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably
estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred
after 2036 related to such potential claims.  It is possible Duke
Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the
recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$814 million
in excess of the self-insured retention.  Receivables for
insurance recoveries were US$587 million at March 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016.  These amounts are classified in Other within
Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware
of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery
asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues
to have a strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c4Ju9G


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 55 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 55 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in
1,371 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31,
2017.  The claims were filed over a period beginning in 1994
through March 31, 2017.  In many cases these claims involved more
than 100 defendants.  Of the claims filed, 1,316 were dismissed,
settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of March 31,
2017.  Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than
US$3,000.  There remained 55 pending asbestos claims as of March
31, 2017.  There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Dgdio4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.3MM at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s unit has accrued US$1,349,000 as of
March 31, 2017 relating to the open and active claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "BNS Sub has insurance policies covering
asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with
estimated aggregate coverage limits of US$183,000,000, with
US$1,543,000 at both March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 in
estimated remaining self-insurance retention (deductible).  There
is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973, although
there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the
coverage was in place.  Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in
1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos.  Under certain
circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened.  Also,
there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS
Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the
filing of a new claim.  BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits.
None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised.  As of both March 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to
the open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This accrual
represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to
defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the
amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded,
through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Dgdio4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 709 Injury Lawsuits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company is facing approximately 709 asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits as of March 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation.  Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants.  To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of March 31, 2017, there were approximately 709 lawsuits.  We
believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims.  We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously.  Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases.  We do not expect the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings to have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or
liquidity.  In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on our results of operations."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Pending PI Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 103 pending
personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past
operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2017.

The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by NL.  There are 103 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs.  In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio courts.  We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims.  We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability
to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.  To date, we have
not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.  Based on
information available to us, including:

  * facts concerning historical operations,
  * the rate of new claims,
  * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
  * our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim.  In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies.  These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Lawsuits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., still defends itself against various
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is
one of numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos-related claims and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of the Company.

"The Company is also involved in various legal actions arising out
of the normal course of business, which, taking into account the
liabilities accrued and legal counsel's evaluation of such
actions, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution,
individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

"It is reasonably possible that the estimates for warranty costs,
product liability, environmental remediation, asbestos-related
claims and other various legal matters may change based upon new
information that may arise or matters that are beyond the scope of
the Company's historical experience.  Presently, there are no
reliable methods to estimate the amount of any such potential
changes."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ewv3Lg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Still Defends 98 PI Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 98
cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2017.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 98
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 193 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3.0 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
compensatory damages for the fourth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many
cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries;
(c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any
causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many
cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all
or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result
from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert
claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of
the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to
the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/C7PkyG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Asbestos Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax continues to retain responsibility for all pending and
future asbestos-related proceedings related to a former operation,
according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017.

On November 5, 2013, Office Depot completed its merger with
OfficeMax Incorporated in an all-stock transaction.

Office Depot states, "OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility.  Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings
and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising
out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior
to the closing of the sale.  The Company has made provision for
losses with respect to the pending proceedings.  Additionally, as
of April 1, 2017, the Company has made provision for environmental
liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous
substances or other contaminants are or may be located.  For these
environmental liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably
possible losses was approximately US$10 million to US$25 million.
The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these
liabilities.  As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ynQ7tQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,200 claims
were pending for allege exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations.  We have never been a
manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products.  Over
the past several decades and through March 31, 2017, we have been
named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos
involving approximately 6,100 plaintiffs and, of those claims,
approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 4,900 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

"Over the past several decades and through March 31, 2017, the
claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have
been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of
approximately two thousand dollars per claim.  We review each case
on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of
loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related
expenses, if any.

"While we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings,
especially in one specific venue, we do not believe the increase
or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse
effect on our future results of operations, financial position or
cash flow, and at March 31, 2017, we had approximately US$8,800
accrued for liability and related expenses.

"With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable
estimate of liability, if any.  While we continue to pursue
recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through
insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are
unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to
recover because of the variability in coverage amounts,
limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with
respect to our insurance policies for the years in question."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PhS1yU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $11.5MM Cleanup Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that, together with its Investments in
real estate partnerships, had accrued liabilities of US$11.5
million as of March 31, 2017 for their pro-rata share of
environmental remediation which includes the existence of asbestos
in older shopping centers.

The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of
asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum
storage tanks.  We believe that the tenants who currently operate
dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with
current laws and regulations.  Generally, we use all legal means
to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants from our shopping
centers or convert them to more environmentally friendly systems.
Where available, we have applied and been accepted into state-
sponsored environmental programs.  We have a blanket environmental
insurance policy for third-party liabilities and remediation costs
on shopping centers that currently have no known environmental
contamination.  We have also placed environmental insurance, where
possible, on specific properties with known contamination, in
order to mitigate our environmental risk.  We monitor the shopping
centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases
voluntarily remediate the sites.  We also have legal obligations
to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of doing so.

"As of March 31, 2017, we and our Investments in real estate
partnerships had accrued liabilities of US$11.5 million for our
pro-rata share of environmental remediation.  We believe that the
ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will
not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity,
or results of operations; however, we can give no assurance that
existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have
revealed all potential environmental contaminants and liabilities;
that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any
material environmental condition not known to us; that the current
environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be
affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby
properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in
applicable environmental laws and regulations or their
interpretation will not result in additional environmental
liability to us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ib5ss2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $295.5MM Loss Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had net asbestos loss reserves of US$295.5
million, or 95.3%, of total net A&E reserves at March 31, 2017,
all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "On July 13, 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to
Clearwater Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we
entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of
Clearwater.  Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of
the liabilities associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies,
which had been reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for
entering into the retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash
of US$140.3 million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as
of the closing date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves
retroceded, US$100.5 million were related to A&E business.  The
maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be
US$440.3 million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0
million.  We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the
maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques.  We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities.  The survival
ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses.  Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels.  Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.2 years at March 31,
2017.  These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/89UTp1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company still defends itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain
wire and cable, the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

Houston Wire states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance that,
to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with
these claims.  In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of
the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Wr7RYf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 228 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. still defends itself against 228 pending
asbestos-related cases as of March 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.  In management's opinion, the complaints
typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that
Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss
to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through March 31, 2017
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$1.2 million,
of which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses; US$1.1 million have been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$27,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 228 cases pending
against the Company as of March 31, 2017 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2016.  During the three months ended March 31, 2017,
15 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from 12 cases and settled four cases.  Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial.  The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts.  However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage.  The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases
will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,786 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,786 asbestos-related claims
pending at March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products of predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Those subsidiaries,
and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number
of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 445 and 427 claims as
of March 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively, classified in various
jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal
judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to
as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/b4fPAA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $166.3MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$166.3 million reserve at March
31, 2017 for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2016, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2026.  The methodology
used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the operating
subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential
future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the
same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates,
relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2014, to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1,
2014, to September 9, 2016, to determine the average settlement
value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of
filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors.  These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.  In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2026.  Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2016, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2026 was
US$171,181,000 of which approximately 70% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2026 and future defense costs.  The reserve at March 31,
2017 was US$166,293,000.  While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2026.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2026.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was US$115,945,000 (US$112,319,000 at March 31,
2017)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/b4fPAA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company still defends itself against cases
related to the use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 1, 2017.

Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits
claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products.  In many of these cases, the complaints
are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company
or its products.  The cases vary, but complaints in these cases
generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants.  The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them.  It is not currently possible
to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with
these cases and, accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.  The
Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide
insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing
coverage under some of these agreements and policies, although
there can be no assurance of the results of these efforts.  There
can be no assurance that these cases, whether as a result of
adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will
not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2bHB8k


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. E-Source Remains Pending in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc.'s unit continue to face an asbestos-related
lawsuit related to a facility in Jefferson County, Texas,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a
defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a
lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson
County, Texas, on April 22, 2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole
Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-
Source and Motiva.  The claims include Breach of Contract and
Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and
remediation operations performed for defendants' at Motiva's
facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas.  The plaintiff
alleges it is due monies earned.  Defendants have denied any
amounts due to plaintiff.  The suit seeks damages of approximately
US$864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by
defendants and reimbursement of legal fees.  E-Source has asserted
a counterclaim against Whole for the filing of a mechanic's lien
in excess of any amount(s) actually due as well as a cross-claim
against Motiva.  Under the terms of E-Source's contract with
Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to any sub-contractors of
E-Source.  If any additional monies are owed to Whole, those
monies should be paid by Motiva.  E-Source seeks to recover the
balance due under its contract with Motiva of approximately
US$1,000,000.  The case is set for trial in the summer of 2017.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations
made in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining
whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with
the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the
litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/22Aaaa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Faced 1,104 New Claims in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had received around 1,104 new
asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and
has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts.  These suits principally allege
that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and
punitive damages.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never
engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally have
focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the
1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned
of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and
factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.  There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related
claims in 2016.  During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and
2016, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately
1,104 and 1,386 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.

"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 98 Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. remains a co-defendant in around 98
asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 98
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 193 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
compensatory damages for the fourth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.

"Among the factors management considered in reaching this
conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed
from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly
filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the
plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship
to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the
plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any
injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged
exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against
multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are
not attributed to individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not
believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are
meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the
amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the
plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Faces 56,300 Claims at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Optical Corporation had around 56,300 claims as of April
2, 2017, for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and
other allegedly hazardous materials, according to Pfizer Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation, which manufactured and sold
respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing.  In
connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities,
including certain asbestos-related and other claims.  As of April
2, 2017, approximately 56,300 claims naming American Optical and
numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and
state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in
the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FA622Q


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Suits at April 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that it still defends itself against numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer
and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FA622Q


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Defends RI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation still defends itself against an
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit pending in a Rhode
Island court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix
of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the
Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M
Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company,
alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed,
tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy
Edwards.  The Company received service of process in April 2011.
The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to
the compliant.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect.
Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7z1QvU






                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *