CAR_Public/170630.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, June 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 128



                            Headlines

ADVANCE TANK: "Hennigan" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
AKORN INC: Faces "House" Suit Over Fresenius, Quercus Merger
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Won't Rethink Class Action Dismissal
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Heller" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ALPHA RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

AMAZON.COM: Says Consumer Agreed to Terms in Diet Drug Row
AMEDISYS: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action for $43.8MM
AMERICAN REALTY: Former Executive Testifies On Accounting Mistakes
ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of CalPERS Suit
ARDENT MILLS: Industrial-Size Bags of Flour Now Part of Recall

ASSET RECOVERY: "Lamb" Class Certification Bid Continued
AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Expects Settlement Costs to Be $20MM
AUSTRALIA: Attys for Jailed Indonesians Eye Compensation
AVINGER INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Removed from Cal. Super. to N.D.
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Court Certifies Class in Burges, et al. Suit

BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Class Cert. Motion Continued to Aug 8
BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Employees File Suit for Unpaid Over Time Pay
BNC BANCORP: Completes $1.9-Bil. Sale to Pinnacle Financial
CHICAGO: "Campbell" Class Certification Bid Continued to Sep. 7
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Hit With New Class Action Over ERISA Violations

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Settles "Medina" Class Action for $142 Million
COLONEL'S LIMITED: Faces "Achoual" Suit Over Reimbursement Rates
CONAGRA BRANDS: Class Asserts No Need for SCOTUS Review
CORE FIBER: Faces "Griffin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
CORECIVIC: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Scabies Outbreak

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Cable Technicians Class
DAVIS VISION: Faces "Frank" Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Acts
DEEP SOUTH: Faces "Carmouche" Suit Alleging Misclassification
DELAWARE HEALTH: Faces "Bungy" Class Suit in Delaware Sup. Ct.
ECODESIGNZ LLC: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation

ENRICH FINANCIAL: "Aleksanian" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ERIC CONN: Former Clients Entitled to Settlement Claim
EVANGER'S DOG: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
FANDUEL INC: "Parnell" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Advertising
FARMERS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations

FINANCIAL ASSET: "Woods" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
FLUOR CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Army Contract in Afghanistan
GLOBAL CREDIT: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
GOOGLE INC: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval on $5.5MM Wage Deal
GRUBHUB INC: Wants Class Lead Plaintiff to be Sanctioned

GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: $6.1MM Settlement in "Munoz" Case Approved
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks Certification of Class
INSIGHT GLOBAL: "Barker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
IOWA: Faces Putative Class Suit Over Benefits Cut
J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Class Provisionally Certified in "Carroll" Suit

JETSMARTER INC: Lamey Seeks Certification of Managers Class
L'OREAL USA: "Valrie" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Alabama
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Court Denies to Certify Class in "Scroggins"
LKM ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Mahrous"
MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Faces Class Action Over GRR Scheme

MATTOON TOWNSHIP, IL: Faces Class Action Over High Property Taxes
MAZOR ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Aug. 8
MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: May Face Suit Over Insurance Products
MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: Responds to AFR Report on Class Action
MDL 2353: Class, Subclasses Sought in Tropicana Orange Juice Suit

MICHIGAN: Family Court Judge Sues over Age Discrimination
MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Pays Floaters to Prevent Threatened Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Townsend, et al. Suit Seeks Class Certification
MONTGOMERY, AL: 11th Circuit Remands Red Light Camera Suit
MOZES INC: Plaintiff Agrees to End TCPA Class Action

MURPHY OIL: Justice Dept. Flips Position in Supreme Court Case
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 1st 2 Claims in Concussion Deal Total $9MM
NEAL TRUCKING: "Poisson" Class Action Settlement Pending
NOVA SCOTIA: Hospital Employee's Snooping Could Cost $1MM
NEW JERSEY: Hit With Possible Class Action Over New Bail System

NRG ENERGY: "Wilens" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Lawyer Starts Probe for Class Action
PANERA BREAD: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
PETCO ANIMAL: "Hecker" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
PINE BUILDERS: Faces "Adams" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Class Certification Bid Continued
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Great Barrington May Join Flushable Wipes Suit
ROSS DRESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Sued for Mishandling Blood Glucose Tests
RS&H INC: Judge Denies Certification in Age Discrimination Suit

SAFEWAY INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Bernal" Suit Says
SKY SOLAR: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
SKY SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
SKY SOLAR: Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
SONUS NETWORKS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action

SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA: Judge Denies Class Certification in "Hardoby"
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Gas Royalty Case Nearing Conclusion
STEPTOE & JOHNSON: "Houck" Class Action Alleges Gender Bias
STUPAR & SCHUSTER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
SYNGENTA: To Appeal $218MM Jury Verdict in GMO Corn Case

TAKATA CORP: Airbag Recall Costs, Lawsuits Prompt Bankruptcy
TAX EASE: Brown, et al. Seek Certification of Class
TEAM BLAZE: Faces "Espinoza" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
TECHNICAL TEMPERATURE: "Glickman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TELE PAY: Faces Class Action Over Exploitative Pay Scheme

TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Heat-Related Prison Deaths
TRUE FITNESS: Faces Class Action in Malaysia Over Abrupt Closure
TT OF PINE RIDGE: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Six Looming Legal Threats
UNITED STATES: Detroit Families Plea to Stop Deportation

VWR CORP: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to Avantor
WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Final Approval of "O'Brien" Settlement Sought
WASHINGTON: Suit Filed on Behalf of Special Education Students
WEST CORP: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Wyant" Class Suit Says
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Cabrio & Duet Dryers are Fire Hazards, Suit Says

WORLD TECH: Faces Class Action Over Drone Products Warranty

* Judge Puts on Hold Reform of Federal Overtime Standards
* Trump Administration Sides with Employers in Court Labor Case
* Wisconsin AG Doesn't Rule Out Suit Against Opioid Manufacturers


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Fails to File Claim vs. City on Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: News Asbestos Court Rules May Draw Challenges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Seeks Info From Bankruptcy Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eddie Obeid Left Asbestos in Former Property
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Waterblasters Spread Asbestos Over Home

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Former Hannibal Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Green Bay Funds to Remove Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADEQ, County Ink Consent Administrative Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auto Industry Applauds Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peninsula Home Fined $98,350 for Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grenfell Tower Riddled with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Vet, Former Welder Sues Over Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Files OSHA Complaint on Schiller Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., for Asbestos Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Explosion Exposes Officers to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Blame Companies for Relative's Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Claims Honeywell, et al., Liable for Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NH Worker Complains of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Vet, Wife Sue Dozes Over Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Blames Companies for Husband's Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brexit Minister's Asbestos Links Questioned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Risk Evaluation Scope Reveals Industry Influence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Doubled for Australian Men
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Continues to Increase
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Lead to School Renovations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monongalia County BOE Approves Asbestos Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Hackshaw"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Reverses Federal Jurisdiction Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Status Report Needed in "Harris"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A. Frank Banned from Testifying in "Rockman"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: C. Branham Admitted Pro Hac Vice in "McSwain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Morgan" P.I. Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Suit vs. AT&T Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Purdy Admitted Pro Hac Vice in "Moore"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Thrash" to State Court Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Continues at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Still Defends A&F Lawsuit at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Ongoing at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at April 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Faces Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.2MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Continues to Defend Claims at April 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PQ Group Holdings Had $537K Reserves at March 31


                            *********


ADVANCE TANK: "Hennigan" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHAWN HENNIGAN, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE TANK
AND CONSTRUCTION CO., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01456 (S.D.
Tex.), Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional certification of:

   "all hourly paid individuals who received a per diem and other
   allowances within the past three years."

Shawn Hennigan filed this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages
owed to current and former hourly employees who worked for
Defendant Advance Tank And Construction Co. and any subsidiary or
parent companies during the past three years. The Plaintiff
alleges Defendant failed to include all remuneration when
calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of determining
the federally mandated overtime rate and as a consequence violated
Section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that the per diem payments and other allowances
are disguised wages and violate Section 207 of the FLSA because
the per diems and allowance.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kMZ6r9ni

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


AKORN INC: Faces "House" Suit Over Fresenius, Quercus Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN A. HOUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR,
KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE L. GRAVES, RONALD M.
JOHNSON, STEVEN J. MEYER, TERRY A. RAPPUHN, BRIAN TAMBI, and
ALAN WEINSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00367-BAJ-EWD (M.D.
La., June 12, 2017), alleges that in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement in connection
with the proposed merger between Akorn, Fresenius Kabi AG, and
Quercus Acquisition, Inc.

In particular, says the complaint, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for the Company; (ii) the valuation analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in
support of its fairness opinion; and (iii) potential conflicts of
interest J.P. Morgan faced as a result of its prior dealings with
parties on both sides of the merger.

Pursuant to the transaction, the Company's shareholders stand to
receive $34.00 in cash for each share of Akorn common stock they
own.

Akorn, Inc., develops, manufactures and markets generic and
branded prescription pharmaceuticals, branded as well as private-
label over-the-counter consumer health products, and animal health
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212 971 1341
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Won't Rethink Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
has refused to rethink its decision tossing a pension fund's
putative securities class action alleging dental products maker
Align Technology Inc. misled investors about a $187.6 million
acquisition, effectively rejecting arguments that the ruling's new
high falsity standard goes too far.

The pension fund had argued that the three-judge panel's May
decision erroneously overstated the Ninth Circuit's standards for
pleading falsity and scienter, and as a result improperly
overruled the Ninth Circuit's rulings in Reese v. Malone and three
other cases. But on June 14, the full court refused the pension
fund's rehearing petition.

"The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en
banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the
matter en banc," the order said.

The pension fund -- City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire
Retirement System -- had sought a rehearing after a three-judge
panel ruled it failed to sufficiently plead scienter or falsity
under a standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in
Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry
Pension Fund et al.

The ruling marked an end to a December 2012 lawsuit filed by the
pension fund that alleged Align Technology and its executives
misrepresented the value of its subsidiary in public statements
and on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forms.

The suit claimed that when Align Technology acquired Cadent
Holdings Inc. for $187.6 million in March 2011, it knew Cadent had
artificially inflated its value by offering substantial discounts
to its customers in an attempt to make itself appear more
valuable. Align Technology then allegedly waited too long to
investigate the value of Cadent and tried to cover it up through
intentional misstatements on SEC reports, the suit said.

A trial court tossed the suit with prejudice in 2014, finding the
pension fund failed to adequately plead falsity or scienter under
Omnicare. But the pension fund appealed the dismissal, arguing
that the Omnicare pleading standard doesn't apply and the district
court improperly interpreted fact-based statements as statements
of opinions.

A three-judge panel rejected the fund's appeal, acknowledging that
in order to reach its decision, the panel must toss aside the
Ninth Circuit's lower falsity pleading standard set in its 2014
Reese decision.

In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit had allowed plaintiffs to plead
falsity by alleging there is "no reasonable basis for the belief"
under a material misrepresentation theory of liability. But that
standard doesn't square with the high court's 2015 ruling in
Omnicare, which held that pleading falsity by alleging "there is
no reasonable basis for the belief" is permissible only under an
omissions theory of liability. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit has
been overruled on the issue, the panel said.

In the pension fund's petition for rehearing en banc, the fund
argued the panel's opinion is overbroad and improperly holds that
a sincerely held, but inaccurate, statement of belief is not
actionably false under the securities laws.

"The panel decision overlooks Omnicare's express instruction that
while subjective belief in an opinion statement that is
subsequently proved false may preclude a claim of literal falsity
under the securities laws, that point cannot be taken 'too far,'"
the pension fund said.

The ruling also fails to establish that both the Omnicare and
Reese rulings established alternative grounds for pleading that
opinion statements are false, the pension fund said. For example,
such statements can be false if they're made, but not actually
believed, without reasonable basis, or made in the face of
undisclosed facts that seriously undermine the statement's
accuracy.

To reach its decision, the panel made factual findings that are
contradicted by the allegations in the complaint and erroneously
held that a plaintiff must allege before discovery the "actual
assumptions that defendants relied upon in conducting their
goodwill analysis," the fund said.

Those particularity requirements are not in line with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the pension fund argued.

But those arguments weren't enough to convince the Ninth Circuit
to rehear the case.

Caz Hashemi of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who represents
Align Technology and its executives, said in an email on June 16
that they are pleased the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing en banc.

Counsel for the pension fund didn't immediately respond on June 16
to requests for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Milan D. Smith Jr. and
U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt, sitting by designation, sat
on the panel.

The pension fund is represented by Amanda M. Frame, Esq. --
amandaf@rgrdlaw.com -- Christopher M. Wood, Esq. --
christopherw@rgrdlaw.com --  Shawn A. Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Andrew S. Love, Esq. -- andrewl@rgrdlaw.com
-- Susan K. Alexander, Esq. -- susana@rgrdlaw.com -- and Darren J.
Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Align Technology and its executives are represented by Caz
Hashemi, Esq. -- chashemi@wsgr.com -- Nicholas R. Miller, Esq. --
nmiller@wsgr.com --   Kelley M. Kinney, Esq. -- kkinney@wsgr.com -
-  and Douglas J. Clark, Esq. -- dclark@wsgr.com -- of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The case is City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire
Retirement System v. Align Technology Inc. et al., case number 14-
16814, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [GN]


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Heller" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JONATHAN HELLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN
FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01821-ODW-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 11, 2017, at
1:30 p.m., before the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II of the United
States District Court, Central District of California, for an
order to certify a class consisting of:

"all persons within the United States who received any telephone
calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made
through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously
consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to
the filing of this Complaint".

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eOnb0MA1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPHA RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ELAINE BONIN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPHA RECOVERY
CORP. and JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00885 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yw22uR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM: Says Consumer Agreed to Terms in Diet Drug Row
----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Amazon.com Inc.
told a New York federal judge on June 14 that a consumer in a
proposed class action agreed to the online retailer's conditions
of use and therefore must arbitrate the case accusing it of
failing to do enough to prevent the sale of a dangerous diet drug.

Lead plaintiff Dean Nicosia, who alleges violations of consumer
product safety rules in the putative class action, placed at least
51 orders on Amazon using accounts in his name and an Amazon Prime
account he shares with his wife and repeatedly viewed language on
the website's order page saying, "By placing your order, you agree
to Amazon.com's privacy notice and conditions of use," the
retailing giant said in a memo supporting its motion to compel
arbitration.

"In each instance, he then clicked on a button that says 'Place
your order,'" Amazon said. "Plaintiff acknowledges he was aware
that the words referring to the conditions of use were on the
screen. Although he claims not to have read the conditions of use,
his awareness of their existence is sufficient in itself to
establish constructive notice and bind him to their terms."

Nicosia countered on June 14 in an opposition to the motion to
compel that the Second Circuit on Aug. 25 found in an appellate
ruling that Amazon's order screen fails to give "conspicuous
notice" of arbitration. Nicosia argued that he did not have actual
notice of the conditions of use and that Amazon has not shown that
he had actual notice of the arbitration terms.

"The Second Circuit concluded that Amazon's website order screen
did not provide Nicosia with conspicuous notice of its hyperlink
to an embedded 'conditions of use,'" he said. "The mandate rule
prevents Amazon from relitigating that issue in this court. It is
therefore left arguing that Nicosia had actual notice. But Nicosia
testified that he never saw the hyperlink or the [conditions of
use]. Amazon thus cannot show that Nicosia had notice or agreed to
arbitration."

Amazon, however, asserted in its memo that the Second Circuit
emphasized that it did not hold "that there was no objective
manifestation of mutual assent" to the arbitration agreement.

"Instead the court concluded that, based on the limited record
before it and applying the liberal motion to dismiss standard,
reasonable minds could disagree on whether plaintiff had
constructive notice of the Amazon conditions of use," Amazon said.
"The Second Circuit therefore remanded for further proceedings,
noting that 'factual questions remain as to the formation of the
agreement to arbitrate.'"

On Feb. 4, 2015, U.S. District Judge Sandra L. Townes had
dismissed Nicosia's suit alleging Amazon hadn't done enough to
prevent the sale of a weight loss supplement known as "1 Day
Diet," ruling that he had agreed to be bound by Amazon's terms and
conditions, which included the arbitration provision.

1 Day Diet contained hidden amounts of sibutramine, a controlled
substance only available by prescription that has been linked to
serious heart events, according to court filings. The product was
removed from Amazon's website within 24 hours of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration issuing a public notification urging consumers
to stop using 1 Day Diet in November 2013, Judge Townes said.

The judge said that each time Nicosia made a purchase, he had to
navigate past a final checkout screen that included a conspicuous
warning, with the words "conditions of use" displayed in blue font
and hyperlinked to the conditions that were in effect at the time
of the purchases.

Nicosia had argued that he wasn't bound by those terms because
Amazon reserved the right to change its terms at any time, and
that any contract relating to the sale of the offending product
was an illegal contract because Amazon couldn't legally sell any
product containing sibutramine without a prescription.

But both those issues are reserved for arbitrators, according to
Judge Townes.

Representatives for Nicosia and Amazon did not immediately respond
on June 15 to a request for comment.

Amazon is represented by Gregory T. Parks, Esq. --
gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Jacqueline C. Gorbey, Esq. --
jacqueline.gorbey@morganlewis.com -- and Regina Schaffer-Goldman,
Esq. -- regina.schaffer-goldman@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP.

Nicosia and the proposed class are represented by Joseph S. Tusa,
Esq. -- info@tpcnylaw.com -- of Tusa PC, Peter D. St. Phillip Jr.,
Esq. -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- and Scott V. Papp, Esq. --
spapp@lowey.com -- of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC, Timothy G.
Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Paula M. Roach, Esq. --
proach@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and Gregory S.
Duncan, Esq. -- greg@lawyerduncan.com --

The suit is Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., case number 1:14-cv-
04513, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. [GN]


AMEDISYS: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action for $43.8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Barkholz, writing for Modern Health, reports that home health
giant Amedisys announced on June 16 that it has agreed to pay
$43.8 million to settle a shareholder class-action securities
lawsuit brought in 2010.

The settlement, of which Amedisys' insurance carriers will pay $15
million, is the final chapter of a seven-year legal battle that
also saw Amedisys pay $150 million in 2014 to the U.S. Justice
Department for allegedly inflating Medicare home care visits.

The shareholders said in the class-action that their investment in
the Baton Rouge-based company had been damaged by the Medicare
fraud scheme.

In a regulatory filing on June 16, Amedisys said it expects to
record a pre-tax charge to net income of about $28.8 million in
the second quarter because of the settlement.

"The company is settling the case to eliminate uncertainties,
risk, distraction and expense associated with this protracted
litigation, and neither the company nor any individual defendant
concedes or admits liability," Amedisys noted in its filing.

The company will pay the settlement from internal cash with
payment expected in the third quarter.

Amedisys said in a statement that "we look forward to putting this
civil matter behind us so we can continue to focus on providing
the highest quality of care to our patients, their families and
the communities we serve."

Amedisys is one of the nation's largest home health chains. It
posted net income of $37.3 million in 2016 on revenue of $1.44
billion. [GN]


AMERICAN REALTY: Former Executive Testifies On Accounting Mistakes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports that a former
high-ranking executive at American Realty Capital Properties Inc.
testified in federal court in New York that in emails and meetings
during the spring and summer of 2014 he repeatedly raised the
warning of an accounting mistake in the real estate investment
trust's calculation of an important cash-flow metric known as
adjusted funds from operation.

Just months after those warnings, ARCP revealed that its financial
statements for the first half of 2014 were inaccurate, and reduced
its AFFO by almost $23 million. ARCP shares dove after the
announcement, wiping out billions of dollars in investor equity.
Angry investors, meanwhile, have filed class-action complaints
against the company, which changed its name to Vereit Inc. in 2015
to distance itself from its founder, Nicholas Schorsch, who is no
longer involved in the company.

The executive who testified, Ryan Steel, the former director of
financial reporting at ARCP, is a key witness for the federal
government in its case against Brian Block, ARCP's former chief
financial officer. The Justice Department last September charged
Mr. Block with conspiracy, securities fraud and making false
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Block faced discrepancies over the REIT's AFFO accounting in
July 2014 as he was preparing ARCP's second quarter financial
statements, according to Daniel Tehrani, assistant U.S. attorney.

"He could make up numbers to make problems disappear," Mr. Tehrani
said last June 13 in the government's opening statements.

"He chose to lie. He chose to deceive the marketplace."

"Boy, do we disagree," countered Mr. Block's attorney, Reid
Weingarten, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson.

"I'm asking you to look for good faith in every nook and cranny in
this trial."

AFFO can be a tricky financial metric to measure, and ARCP in its
filings cautioned against relying on the metric. Indeed, there was
no obfuscation of AFFO at the company, said Mr. Weingarten.

Mr. Steel has cut a deal with federal prosecutors not to be
charged in the ARCP accounting matter. He said he was fired by
ARCP in December 2014.

In the spring of 2014, Mr. Steel said he first identified problems
with ARCP's AFFO calculation. At the time, AFFO was calculated by
taking funds from operation, or FFO -- which adds back
depreciation to net operating income -- and then adding back other
financial figures, such as mergers-and-acquisitions costs.

INFLATED AFFO

Mr. Steel testified that the problem with ARCP's accounting was
that while shareholders accounted for roughly 96% percent of the
company's operating partnership units, the add-backs were computed
on 100% of the units, causing the AFFO to be inflated. Making
appropriate adjustments to ARCP's accounting for AFFO would result
in a per share decrease in the metric.

The company said in its quarterly filings that the AFFO was net of
any noncontrolling interests, which Mr. Steel said accounted for
about 4% of the company.

In his testimony, Mr. Steel repeatedly referred to such a
calculation of AFFO as double-dipping and called it a "hybrid"
method.

Mr. Steel said pressure over the AFFO accounting culminated in
three meetings on July 28, 2014. The next day, ARCP was to
publicly file its second quarter results with the SEC.

Along with Lisa McAlister, ARCP's former chief accounting officer,
Mr. Steel and Mr. Block discussed the company's AFFO results and
two different methods to calculate that number: the "hybrid"
method, which Mr. Steel said he believed to be incorrect, and the
"net" method, which he testified was proper.

Mr. Block quickly populated a blank spreadsheet for AFFO using an
incorrect accounting method, Mr. Steel said.

"There you go," Mr. Block allegedly said. "What do you think?"

"I was shocked. My jaw dropped," Mr. Steel said. "I knew the
numbers were wrong." He said Ms. McAlister started to nod and said
that worked and looked good. [GN]


ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of CalPERS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Supreme Court precedent on extending the time to file a class
action in Washington is not applicable in the securities setting,
the justices ruled 5-4 on June 26.

Referred to generally as "American Pipe tolling," the practice
takes its name from the Supreme Court's decision on the 1974
decision American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

CalPERS, short for the California Public Employees' Retirement
System, contends that the precedent should be considered in
determining whether a case it filed in New York is barred by the
three-year statute of repose contained in section 13 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

ANZ Securities is the lead defendant named in the CalPERS case,
which is part of sprawling litigation over the bankruptcy of
Lehman Brothers.

After U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed CalPERS' case,
the Second Circuit affirmed last year, holding firm to its
position that American Pipe tolling does not affect the statute of
repose embodied in section 13.  The federal appeals court said it
saw no reason to distinguish CalPERS' case from its 2013 ruling
Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS Inc.

In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court was split 5-4 on
party lines.

"The purpose of a statute of repose is to create 'an absolute bar
on a defendant's temporal liability,' and that purpose informs the
assessment of whether, and when, tolling rules may apply," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "In light of the purpose
of a statute of repose, the provision is in general not subject to
tolling. Tolling is permissible only where there is a particular
indication that the legislature did not intend the statute to
provide complete repose but instead anticipated the extension of
the statutory period under certain circumstances."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg attacked this logic, however, in a
strongly worded dissent.

"Today's decision disserves the investing public that [Sec.] 11
was designed to protect," she wrote, joined by Justices Elena
Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer. "The harshest
consequences will fall on those class members, often least
sophisticated, who fail to file a protective claim within the
repose period. Absent a protective claim filed within that period,
those members stand to forfeit their constitutionally shielded
right to opt out of the class and thereby control the prosecution
of their own claims for damages. Because critical stages of
securities class actions, including the class-certification
decision, often occur years after the filing of a class complaint,
the risk is high that class members failing to file a protective
claim will be saddled with inadequate representation or an
inadequate judgment. The majority's ruling will also gum up the
works of class litigation. Defendants will have an incentive to
slow walk discovery and other precertification proceedings so the
clock will run on potential opt outs.  Any class member with a
material stake in a Sec.11 case, including every fiduciary who
must safeguard investor assets, will have strong cause to file a
protective claim, in a separate complaint or in a motion to
intervene, before the three-year period expires. Such filings, by
increasing the costs and complexity of the litigation,
'substantially burden the courts.'"

The majority argued meanwhile that statutes of repose are intended
to override customary tolling rules arising from the equitable
powers of courts.

"By establishing a fixed limit, a statute of repose implements a
'legislative decision that as a matter of policy there should be a
specific time beyond which a defendant should no longer be
subjected to protracted liability,'" Kennedy wrote, quoting
precedent "The unqualified nature of that determination supersedes
the courts' residual authority and forecloses the extension of the
statutory period based on equitable principles. For this reason,
the court repeatedly has stated in broad terms that statutes of
repose are not subject to equitable tolling."

Kennedy spent four pages cutting through the pension group's
counter-arguments, which he called implausible.

"It appears that, in petitioner's view, the bringing of the class
action would make any subsequent action raising the same claims
timely," the opinion states. "Taken to its logical limit, an
individual action would be timely even if it were filed decades
after the original securities offering -- provided a class-action
complaint had been filed at some point within the initial 3-year
period. Congress would not have intended this result."

Mark Foster, an attorney who specializes in securities law for the
firm Morrison & Foerster, noted in a statement that Monday's
decision will have little real-world impact but practical-world
implications.

"This peace of mind is good for being able to calculate exposure
in terms of not only settlements or adverse judgments, but also
expenses," Foster said, highlighting the costs that arise when a
company must defend itself, its directors and officers, and even
its underwriters.

One change Foster predicted is closer monitoring of investment
portfolios.

"Savvy plaintiff's firms will likely reach out to their
institutional investor clients to monitor portfolios to assess the
viability of filing potential claims going forward," Foster added.

Another practice that Foster attributed to savvy plaintiffs is
reaching private agreements with defendants.

"It is an easy solution to get around any time bar issues," he
said.

Emphasizing that institutional investors seldom get involved in
filing securities actions, let alone opt-out actions, Foster said
on June 26 decision will not diminish their rights in any way.

For the small group involved in these actions, they "will either
need to move to intervene or be added as lead plaintiff in pending
cases, as the court suggested, or they can set up a reminder on
their calendars to assess whether they have a claim that needs
filing," Foster said.

"If anything, this creates a business generation opportunity for
the plaintiffs' bar, which is likely to gladly approach
institutional investors to monitor portfolios for the filing of
such potential claims at no charge," he added.


ARDENT MILLS: Industrial-Size Bags of Flour Now Part of Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News Ottawa reports that a national recall of flour due to E.
coli contamination that began in March has been expanded again,
this time to a product aimed at hotels and restaurants.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's recall now includes 20-
kilogram bags of Baker's Hood All Purpose Flour, which has been
sold in Ontario and possibly across Canada.

The recall was first announced on March 28 and affected Robin Hood
flour sold in four provinces in Western Canada. It was later
expanded across the country.

More products were added to the recall in the following months,
including certain flour goods produced by Ardent Mills of
Brampton, Ont.

A complete list of recalled products can be found on the CFIA
website.

The federal agency says all recalled products should be thrown out
or returned to the store.

No deaths have been reported in connection with the recall but the
agency said 26 people were initially infected with E. coli and at
least six required hospital care.

A class-action lawsuit has already been proposed. [GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: "Lamb" Class Certification Bid Continued
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Linda Lamb, the Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery
Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04336 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing a
motion to certify class, as it is merely an anti-pickoff class
certification motion.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 20, 2017,
a briefing schedule will be set later in this case.  The Motion
hearing set for June 22 was stricken.

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


AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Expects Settlement Costs to Be $20MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sol Dolor, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that
Slater and Gordon may be having its own troubles, but it has
recently notched a major win under its belt and is due for a
windfall.

The firm has won a $70m conditional settlement for 1,905 detainees
at the Manus Island immigration detention centre who were held
between 21 November 2012 and 12 May 2016.  The victory is being
billed as the largest human rights class action settlement in
Australian legal history.

The firm went up against the Commonwealth of Australia and
contract service providers G4S and Broadspectrum, formerly known
as Transfield.  Wilson Security was separately joined to the
proceedings by original corporate defendants.

In addition to the primary settlement for the plaintiff, the
defendants have agreed to separately cover all the legal fees
associated with the class action.  Slater and Gordon said that the
costs are expected to be more than $20m, including disbursements,
such as barrister and expert witness fees.  These will be assessed
and approved by the court.

"The people detained on Manus Island have endured extremely
hostile conditions, but they will no longer suffer in silence.
Most were fleeing religious persecution and violence and came to
Australia seeking protection, only to be denied their basic human
rights," said Andrew Baker, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer on
the matter.

"While no amount of money could fully recognize the terrible
conditions the detainees endured, we hope the settlement can begin
to provide them with an opportunity to help put this dark chapter
of their lives behind them," he added.

Mr. Baker said that this was one of the most complicated class
action suits the firm has overseen.

"By sheer numbers, this is one of the largest class actions Slater
and Gordon has ever run.  We have appeared in court more than 50
times, conducted more than 200 witness interviews and analyzed
more than 200,000 discovered documents.  We dealt with 11
judgments resulting from 28 applications to the court, ranging
from public interest immunity challenges, discovery orders and
then class closure and common issues applications were thrown at
us in the weeks leading up to the trial date," Baker said.

The firm is grateful to the more than 70 witnesses that gave
evidence, said Mr. Baker.  The group included doctors, health
workers, security workers, social workers, and the detainees.

"Reliving their experiences to provide evidence was incredibly
traumatic, but crucial to this case, and we would like to pay
tribute to the courage and strength of the Manus Island detainees.
This was a long battle for social justice, but we hope that
today's result, and the three years of work preceding it, helps to
ensure the voices of the Manus Island detainees have finally been
heard," said Mr. Baker.

The scheme to distribute the settlement will be finalized in the
coming weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria for
approval. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Attys for Jailed Indonesians Eye Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that lawyers for an Indonesian locked up in
an Australian maximum-security prison when he was a child hope the
settlement with Manus Island detainees could pave the way for
compensation for their client and other Indonesian youths.

Ali Jasmin, also referred to as Ali Yasmin, was among at least 50
Indonesian children prosecuted by Australian authorities between
2010 and 2012 after they were deemed adults by the since-debunked
method of using wrist x-rays.

Jasmin was 14 in 2010 when he was jailed for five years in a
maximum-security prison in Western Australia. He is now awaiting a
decision by the state's court of appeal to have his conviction
quashed.

A legal bid seeking compensation of AUD103 million has been
launched in Indonesia on behalf of 115 youths who were detained as
adults in Australia but the government argues they cannot be sued
in that jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity.

Jasmin's lawyer, Sam Tierney from Ken Cush and Associates, said
the firm was "examining avenues" to launch an action in the
federal court seeking compensation for Indonesian children.

"We are interested to note the outcome of the Manus case. We would
obviously welcome a similar decision to compensate the Indonesian
children for the detention which was wrongly visited on them."
The class action seeking damages on behalf of 1,905 people
detained on Manus since 2012 reached a conditional settlement of
AUD70 million plus about AUD20 million in costs to the law firm
Slater and Gordon.

The detainees wanted compensation from the Australian government
and the detention centre's operators for alleged physical and
psychological injuries they suffered owing to the conditions they
were held in.

But Tierney said he was "cautious", with a long legal battle
having been fought by the commonwealth director of public
prosecutions "despite being on notice of significant flaws in his
prosecution and resulting conviction".

The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, said the government denied
the allegations in the Manus Island class action and the
settlement was not an admission of liability. [GN]


AVINGER INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Removed from Cal. Super. to N.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned BILLY GONZALEZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AVINGER, INC.,
JEFFREY M. SOINSKI, MATTHEW B. FERGUSON, DONALD A. LUCAS, JOHN B.
SIMPSON, JAMES B. MCELWEE, JAMES G. CULLEN, THOMAS J. FOGARTY,
CANACCORD GENUITY, INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO.
INC., BTIG, LLC, and STEPHENS, INC., Defendants (originally Case
No. 17-CIV-02284, N.D. Cal., May 23, 2017) was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as Case
3:17-cv-03401-JD on June 12, 2017.

The case is a securities suit.

Avinger, Inc., a commercial-stage medical device company, designs,
manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based systems
used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral arterial
disease (PAD) in the United States and Europe.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
     Doru Gavril, Esq.
     Benjamin J. Tolman, Esq.
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
     650 Page Mill Road
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
     Phone: (650) 493-9300
     Fax: (650) 565-5100
     Email: isalceda@wsgr.com
            dgavril@wsgr.com
            btolman@wsgr.com


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Court Certifies Class in Burges, et al. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM E. BURGES, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BANCORPSOUTH, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-
1564 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly Crenshaw entered an
order granting class certification of:

"all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded common stock of BancorpSouth, Inc. between February 12,
2014 and July 21, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors
of the Company at all relevant times, members of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PU8ewRxN


BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Class Cert. Motion Continued to Aug 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Old Town Pizza of Lombard, Inc., the
Plaintiff, v. BiteSquad.com, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03082 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order continuing Plaintiff's Damasco motion for Class
Certification to August 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 26, 2017,
agreed motion of Defendant to extend time in light of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle this case is granted without an
appearance. The Defendant's time to answer is extended to August
2, 2017. Initial status hearing set for July 20, 2017 is stricken
and re-set to August 8, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

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).

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


BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Employees File Suit for Unpaid Over Time Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that former Bloomberg
LP employees filed a proposed class action on June 16 accusing the
Manhattan-based financial data and news company of not paying
customer-support representatives the overtime they were entitled
to under federal labor law.

The former representatives, who helped customers install various
Bloomberg products and services on their computers, claimed in a
lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court that they regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week because of tasks they performed
off the clock. [GN]


BNC BANCORP: Completes $1.9-Bil. Sale to Pinnacle Financial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports BNC
Bancorp's days as an independent bank ended on June 16 with the
closing of its $1.9 billion sale to Pinnacle Financial Partners
Inc.

The closing comes four days after both banks' shareholders
approved the purchase.

The purchase, set in motion Jan. 23, allow gives the Nashville,
Tenn., bank its first North Carolina presence.

Pinnacle expands its total assets to more than $20 billion by
adding BNC's $7.4 billion and 76 branches. Pinnacle becomes a top-
50 U.S. bank with the completion of the deal.

Pinnacle's entrance includes gaining three Forsyth County and 20
Triad branches. Pinnacle expects to begin a signage and technology
conversion late in the third quarter, as which time the Pinnacle
brand will be used in the BNC markets.

Pinnacle is keeping an operational hub in High Point, led by BNC
chief executive and president Rick Callicutt, who becomes chairman
of Pinnacle's Carolinas and Virginia region. Callicutt is one of
four BNC representatives to join the Pinnacle board of directors.

Pinnacle owns 60 percent of the combined bank, while BNC owns 36
percent, and a separate group of private-equity investors 4
percent through a planned $175 million Tier 1 capital raise.

Pinnacle now covers a four-state footprint with a presence in 12
of the largest urban markets in the Southeast, gaining the Triad,
Triangle and Charlotte markets in North Carolina, Greenville-
Spartanburg and Charleston in South Carolina, and Roanoke in
Virginia.

"We believe the Carolinas, Virginia and Tennessee have some of the
strongest commercial banking markets in the country with
significant growth opportunities for our combined firm," Terry
Turner, Pinnacle's president and chief executive, said in a
statement.

"Closing this transaction in less than five months, I believe,
speaks volumes to the commitment and dedication of our and BNC's
associates, the buy-in of shareholders and clients, and the
relationships we have worked hard to develop with our regulators
and within our communities."

Turner said that because the banks have operated under similar
business models, "our goal with the transition is that while
clients may notice the signs change, they won't experience any
degradation in how their bankers interact with them."

Other BNC board members to join the Pinnacle board are Abney
Boxley, Thomas Sloan and Ken Thompson, the former top executive of
First Union Corp. and later Wachovia Corp.

"Since the beginning, Terry has stressed that authority for
driving business and setting goals would remain with BNC's
bankers," Callicutt said. "We get to run our offices based on our
knowledge of the local markets."

BNC's growth in the Carolinas and Virginia came in part from it
becoming a preferred buyer and acquirer of community banks since
the Great Recession ended in 2011.

Since 2009, BNC made bank purchases and acquisitions in the Triad,
Charlotte, Durham, Asheville, Chapel Hill and two Triangle
branches from The Bank of Hampton Roads. The bank also made
acquisitions in Charleston, Greenville and Myrtle Beach, S.C.; and
Roanoke, Va.

The purchase remains the target of a federal shareholder class-
action lawsuit that was filed May 25.

The lawsuit claims the 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 disclosed June 5 pertinent financial projections to
shareholders in hopes of persuading a federal judge to not block
the deal. [GN]


CHICAGO: "Campbell" Class Certification Bid Continued to Sep. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Immanuel Campbell, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. City Of Chicago, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04467
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order
continuing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to September
1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 21, 2017,
initial status hearing is set for September 1 at 10:00 a.m.  Judge
Lee participates in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project
("Project").  The Project applies to all cases filed on or after
June 1, 2017, excluding the following: (1)
cases exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B), (2) actions brought by a
person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state
subdivision, regardless of whether an attorney is recruited,
(3) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
(4) patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules, and (5) cases
transferred for consolidated administration in the
District by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("Exempt Cases").  For all cases to which the Project applies,
Judge Lee requires (1) each attorney appearing on behalf of
Plaintiff(s) to file a "Certification by Attorney Regarding
Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
Project" form within 28 days after the filing of the
Complaint and (2) each attorney appearing on behalf of
Defendant(s) to file the certification form with the Answer. The
parties are directed to file a joint initial status
report five business days prior to the initial status hearing. The
certification form and initial status report requirements are set
forth in Judge Lee's standing order regarding the "Mandatory
Initial Discovery Pilot Project" available on the Courts website.
For all Exempt Cases, the parties are directed to file a joint
initial status report four business days prior to the initial
status hearing in accordance with the standing order governing
"Initial Status Report in Cases Exempt from the Mandatory Initial
Discovery Pilot Project" also available on the Court's website.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wiU2HFLC


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Hit With New Class Action Over ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for Plan Adviser, reports that a new class
action challenge filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Giantonio vs. Chicago Bridge & Iron, accuses
plan fiduciaries of improperly continuing to offer employer stock
as an investment option in the company's retirement plan while the
company faced serious financial challenges.

Similar to other stock-drop challenges, this Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit alleges the employer knew its
stock price was artificially inflated during the class period --
October 29, 2013, through the present -- making it an imprudent
retirement investment for the plans.

As the text of the lawsuit spells out, "Defendants knew or should
have known that material facts about CB&I's business had not been
disclosed to the market, causing CB&I Stock to trade at prices
above which it would have traded had such facts been disclosed."

As a rule these claims are hard to prove in court, it should be
stated, because even though the famous Supreme Court decision in
Fifth-Third vs. Dudenhoeffer established that plan sponsors
offering employer stock cannot rely on a blanket presumption of
prudence, nevertheless the assertion that plan fiduciaries should
have determined that the public stock price of their company was
inflated (or indeed undervalued) is generally implausible --
absent special circumstances such as massive willful fraud.

Knowing this, the plaintiffs attempt in their complaint to
establish that fraud was at least potentially occurring, and that
this should have been enough to prevent plan fiduciaries from
continuing to offer employer stock to participants. As the
complaint states: "During the class period, the company failed to
disclose that it was responsible for hundreds of millions of
dollars in liability and had improperly accounted for its goodwill
during 2013 to cover losses associated with construction delays
and cost overruns on contracts to complete construction of new
nuclear power plants in Waynesboro, Georgia and Jenkinsville,
South Carolina (the "Nuclear Projects"). Furthermore, the company
faces potential fraud claims valued at over $2 billion, which
exceeds its market capitalization as of the filing of this
complaint."

Given the totality of circumstances prevailing during the class
period, plaintiffs assert that "no prudent fiduciary could have
made the same decision as made by defendants here to retain and/or
continue purchasing the clearly imprudent CB&I Stock as investment
in the plans." [GN]


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Settles "Medina" Class Action for $142 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology (NASDAQ: CLVS) disclosed it entered into a
stipulation and agreement of settlement that is intended to settle
the previously disclosed consolidated purported class action
litigation captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No.
1:15-cv-02546 (the "Class Action") against the Company and certain
of its officers and underwriters pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court").  As
previously disclosed, the Class Action, which was filed on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities (the
"Class"), alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
underwriters violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA
approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib.  The
Class Action is more fully described in the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2017.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Class will receive
total consideration of approximately $142.0 million, comprised of
$25.0 million in cash and the issuance by the Company of a to be
determined number of shares of its common stock (the "Settlement
Shares") equal to $117.0 million divided by the volume weighted
average price of the Company's common stock over the 10 trading
days immediately preceding the date of the hearing set by the
Court to consider the final approval of the settlement.  The cash
portion of the consideration is expected to be funded by the
Company's insurance carriers. Following such payment, the Company
will not receive any further significant contributions from its
insurance carriers for the reimbursement of legal expenses
expended on the finalization of the Class Action settlement or any
amounts (including damages, settlement costs or legal fees)
related to the other pending litigations and inquiries relating to
the Company's regulatory update announcement in November 2015 that
the FDA requested additional clinical data on the efficacy and
safety of rociletinib (other than certain damages or settlement
costs related to the pending derivative actions described below).

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record a charge to earnings and a liability in the second quarter
of 2017 in the amount of approximately $142.0 million and a
receivable of approximately $25.0 million from the insurance
carriers.  The Company will issue the Settlement Shares no later
than 5 business days after the date the judgment is entered by the
Court approving the settlement.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.  The
Company has always maintained and continues to believe that it did
not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of
federal or state securities laws or other laws.

Upon the effectiveness of the proposed settlement, the Company and
its directors and officers as well as the other defendants named
in the Class Action will be released from the claims that were
asserted or could have been asserted in the Class Action by Class
members participating in the settlement.  The proposed settlement
is subject to the confirmatory diligence by lead counsel for the
Class, the completion of final documentation, preliminary and
final Court approval, funding of the $25.0 million in cash by the
Company's insurance carriers, the issuance of the Settlement
Shares and other customary closing conditions. Further, the
Company has the right to terminate the settlement if Class members
timely and validly requesting exclusion from the Class meet the
conditions set forth in a confidential supplemental agreement with
the lead plaintiff.  There can be no assurance that the settlement
will be finalized and approved and, even if approved, whether the
conditions to closing will be satisfied, and the actual outcome of
this matter may differ materially from the terms of the settlement
described herein.

All other litigation described in the Company's Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2017, including,
without limitation, the Electrical Workers, Antipodean, Macalinao,
McKenry, and Guo complaints, remains pending and the Company
continues to vigorously defend against the allegations in those
actions, but there can be no assurance that the defenses will be
successful.  In addition, on May 10, 2017, John Solak, a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging that the defendants' breached
their fiduciary duties by adopting a compensation plan that
overcompensates the non-employee directors of the Company.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in
the Solak complaint, but there can be no assurance that the
defense will be successful.

In addition, the Company has received inquiries and requests for
information from governmental agencies, including the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice, relating to the Company's regulatory update announcement
in November 2015 that the FDA requested additional clinical data
on the efficacy and safety of rociletinib.  The Company is
continuing to cooperate with these agencies with respect to their
investigations.  The proposed settlement does not resolve these
inquiries and the Company cannot predict their timing or outcome.
[GN]


COLONEL'S LIMITED: Faces "Achoual" Suit Over Reimbursement Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHID ACHOUAL (3415 Carlin Springs Rd #204, Falls Church VA
22041) Individually and on behalf of other Similarly situated
persons Plaintiff, v. COLONEL'S LIMITED, LLC (CT Corporation
System, 4701 Cox Road Suite 275, Glen Allen VA 23060) Defendant,
alleges that Defendant uses a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates for delivery drivers that provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the minimum wages.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the District of Columbia Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant's Papa John's stores employ delivery drivers who all
have the same primary job duty: to deliver pizzas and other food
items to customers' homes or workplaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Foster S. B. Friedman, Esq.
     WADE, GRIMES, FRIEDMAN, MEINKEN & LEISCHNER, P.L.L.C.
     616 North Washington Street
     Alexandria, VA 22314
     Phone: (703) 836-9030
     Fax: (703) 683-1543
     E-mail: friedman@oldtownlawyers.com

        - and -

     Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
     PAUL LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: (816) 984-8100
     Fax: (816) 984-8101
     E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

        - and -

     Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 997-9150 Ex. 2
     Fax: (314) 997-9170
     E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Class Asserts No Need for SCOTUS Review
-------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that I've been
touting Conagra Brands' petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to
take up the red-hot issue of class action ascertainability as an
early test of the class action appetite of the newly constituted
court. But in an opposition brief filed on June 16, members of the
class suing Conagra over its "all-natural" labels contend the
Supreme Court has already addressed the only real issue Conagra's
petition raises, in 2016's Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.

On the claims actually certified for classwide trial, this case is
indistinguishable from Tyson," wrote counsel of record Samuel
Issacharoff of New York University. "How a claims process will
function, and the level of proof required from claimants, are
simply not relevant to establishing the scope of the defendant's
alleged wrongdoing."

Conagra argued in its petition for certiorari that the federal
circuits are intractably split on whether, in order to be
certified to litigate as a class, lead plaintiffs must offer an
administratively feasible plan to figure out who will ultimately
be allowed to make claims. As you know, there's no so-called
ascertainability requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for class actions, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals imposed one in 2012's Marcus v. BMW of North America and
subsequently reiterated the ascertainability rule in 2013's
Carrera v. Bayer.

In 2015, the 7th Circuit explicitly rejected ascertainability as a
precondition for class certification. As of the date of Conagra's
petition, the 2nd, 4th and 11th Circuits were using
ascertainability tests in line with the 3rd Circuit's. The 6th
Circuit -- and the 9th Circuit in the Conagra case -- are in line
with the 7th Circuit.

But according to the new brief in opposition from plaintiffs in
the Conagra case, the circuit split is greatly exaggerated. The
3rd Circuit has backtracked on its own ascertainability rule and
may undo it altogether in two upcoming cases, the brief said.
Moreover, the other appellate courts that have sided with the 3rd
Circuit did so before the Supreme Court's Tyson ruling.

In the Tyson case, you'll recall, the Supreme Court upheld a wage-
and-hour jury verdict against Tyson on behalf of a class of
employees at an Iowa meat-packing plant. Tyson argued, among other
things, that the class should not have been certified because it
contained workers who were not actually entitled to overtime wages
and were thus not injured by the plant's overtime rules. Tyson
contended that plaintiffs should have been required to provide a
reasonable mechanism for culling uninjured class members -- which,
as I wrote at the time, sounds an awful lot like ascertainability.

Though the Tyson majority opinion did not specifically address the
ascertainability issue, class members in the Conagra case argue
the decision holds that classwide liability is distinct from
aggregated individual damages. Under that interpretation of Tyson,
class actions like the consumer case against Conagra can determine
the classwide scope of a defendant's wrongdoing as a first step,
then figure out who's in the class later on.

The Conagra plaintiffs contend the 9th Circuit's opinions in their
case affirm their methodology for setting classwide damages on
behalf of Wesson Oil purchasers in 11 states that allow aggregate
consumer claims -- exactly, they say, the approach the Supreme
Court blessed in Tyson.

"How does (Conagra) distinguish Tyson? Simply by ignoring it," the
brief said. "Because Tyson controls here, and because the factual
record supports the approaches below, the heightened
ascertainability issue that (Conagra) seeks to raise is not
properly presented. The acontextual question presented would not
be reached under the facts of record."

No one is better at fending off class action defendants at the
Supreme Court than Issacharoff, who has already persuaded the
justices to reject two previous calls for review of the
ascertainability circuit split. On the other hand, Chief Justice
John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito
signaled in Microsoft v. Baker that they're concerned about
uninjured class members, albeit in the context of constitutional
standing, not damages. It's going to be interesting to see if
Conagra's counsel from Jones Day and McGuireWoods can capitalize
on that interest.

One fun piece of inside baseball: in addition to Issacharoff,
Milberg and DiCello Levitt & Casey, the Conagra plaintiffs are
represented by law professor Robert Klonoff of Lewis & Clark, who
just helped revise the federal rules on class actions. Before
Klonoff entered academia, he worked at Jones Day, which, as I
mentioned, is representing Conagra. [GN]


CORE FIBER: Faces "Griffin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GRIFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORE FIBER SOLUTIONS, INC., TIMOTHY
FRAIN, individually, and CANDICE ROLFE, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02148-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 12, 2017), seeks to
obtain full and complete relief for Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and to recover "gap time" wages ("straight time" wages for
fewer than forty hours per week at a rate greater than minimum
wage) under applicable state laws.

Defendant Core Fiber provides communication infrastructure
services, namely fiber-optic technology across the country.  Named
Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated individuals performed
work involving or relating to fiber-optic internet
connectivity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louise N. Smith, Esq.
     William J. Smith, Esq.
     SMITH LAW, LLC
     3611 Braselton Highway, Suite 202
     Dacula, GA 30019
     Phone: (678) 889-2898
     Fax: (844) 828-5615
     E-mail: louise@smithlaw-llc.com
             william@smithlaw-llc.com


CORECIVIC: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Scabies Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal lawsuit has alleged
inmates at a Nashville jail were threatened with solitary
confinement if they discussed a scabies outbreak.

According to reports, the lawsuit was filed on June 16 against
CoreCivic, a private prison company that operates the Metro-
Davidson County Detention Facility.  The lawsuit has sought class
action status for female inmates.

Scabies is caused by a skin infestation of parasites.  Hundreds of
inmates at the prison have been treated.

The lawsuit said after inmates tried to tell relatives about the
scabies outbreak over the phone, their phone privileges were
revoked.

CoreCivic spokesman Jonathan Burns said in a statement that the
company does not comment on pending litigation.

Attorney Gary Blackburn filed the lawsuit.  His wife, Davidson
County General Sessions Judge Melissa Blackburn, has criticized
CoreCivic's handling of the outbreak. [GN]


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Cable Technicians Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SCOTT GREMILLION, the Plaintiff, v. COX
COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
09849-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Janis van Meerveld entered an
order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals who worked as a cable technician providing
   cable repair and installation services for Grayco
   Communications, L.P., in Louisiana at any time since March 24,
   2014 and were paid through a point-based system".

The Court further ordered that:

   1. counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding the
      notice and consent forms that will be distributed to class
      members;

   2. the notice shall contain the following notice "Claims of
      individuals who have not worked for Grayco within the two
      years prior to the time they join this lawsuit may be time-
      barred and, if so, no recovery will be available.";

   3. in the event the parties agree on the proposed notice and
      consent forms, the parties shall file such forms with the
      Court no later than July 13, 2017. If the parties are
      unable to agree on the language of the notice and consent
      forms, the parties shall file with the Court (1) their
      proposed notice and consent forms and (2) their objections
      to same, with supporting authority, no later than July 20,
     2017. Because there is no dispute regarding the information
      to be provided; and

   4. Grayco provide all known names, addresses, and e-mail
      addresses for all class members in Grayco's possession in a
      usable electronic format no later than thirty days from the
      date of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w44hRrce


DAVIS VISION: Faces "Frank" Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Acts
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN FRANK, O.D., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAVIS VISION, INC., and HVHC, INC.,
and HIGHMARK HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02629-HB (E.D.
Pa., June 12, 2017), alleges that Defendant has abused its market
dominance in the vision insurance by subjecting Independent
Pennsylvania Eyecare Providers to anticompetitive and other
unlawful practices in relation to eyecare services rendered to
patients covered by a Davis Vision insurance benefit product.

The proposed class is comprised of independent ophthalmologists,
optometrists, and opticians, and their practices, in Pennsylvania.

Davis Vision is a provider of vision insurance benefits in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
     Ruben Honik, Esq.
     Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
     David J. Stanoch, Esq.
     GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 985-9177
     Fax: (215) 985-4169
     Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
            rhonik@golombhonik.com
            kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
            dstanoch@golombhonik.com

        - and -

     W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
     Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     272 Commerce Street
     P.O. Box 4160
     Montgomery, AL 36103
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (224) 954-7555
     Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
            Rebecca.Gilliland@BeasleyAllen.com


DEEP SOUTH: Faces "Carmouche" Suit Alleging Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICKEY CARMOUCHE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. DEEP SOUTH WELDING, L.L.C. and
JOE MITCHELL, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00497-JRG (E.D.
Tex., June 12, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members were misclassified as independent contractors.  They
routinely work (and worked) in excess of forty (40) hours per
workweek but were not paid overtime for all hours worked in excess
of forty (40) hours per workweek, says the complaint.

Defendants own and operate a welding company that provides
services to the oilfield and other related industries throughout
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a rig welder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELAWARE HEALTH: Faces "Bungy" Class Suit in Delaware Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Delaware Health
Corporation, Parkview Nursing Center Company, LLC, and Medical
Rehabilitation Centers, LLC d/b/a Exceptional Living Centers.

The case is captioned Fay Bungy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Delaware Health Corporation, Parkview
Nursing Center Company, LLC, and Medical Rehabilitation Centers,
LLC d/b/a Exceptional Living Centers, Case No. N17C-06-187-JRJ
(Del. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate health services facilities in
Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelley M. Huff, Esq.
      MURPHY & LANDON
      1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
      Wilmington, DE 19805
      Telephone: (302) 472-8100
      Facsimile: (302) 472-8135
      E-mail: khuff@msllaw.com


ECODESIGNZ LLC: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a California
clothing corporation, alleging negligent misrepresentation.

William Cordoba filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, June 8 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against Ecodesignz LLC alleging
the defendant made false claims regarding the contents of its
hooded sweatshirt product.

According to the complaint, Cordoba was damaged financially from
being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised hooded
sweatshirt product because Ecodesignz falsely said its product was
made out of natural bamboo fabric.

Cordoba seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement,
interest, compensatory and other damages, actual and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, and all
other just and proper relief. He is represented by attorneys Kolin
C. Tang, Esq. -- ktang@sfmskaw.com -- and James Shah, Esq. --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP in
Los Angeles and in Media, Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04266-GW-JC [GN]


ENRICH FINANCIAL: "Aleksanian" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LOLITA ALEKSANIAN and ALEN ISSAGHOLIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Enrich Financial, Inc. and DOES 1-10, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01762-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on February 19, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
before the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II of the United States
District Court, Central District of California, for an order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification of:

   "all persons in the United States whose bank accounts were
   debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants after Defendants
   recorded a cancellation request, between one year from the
   filing of this complaint and the present".

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EFyrHe6S

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ERIC CONN: Former Clients Entitled to Settlement Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Lex18 reports while the FBI disclosed that they were out searching
for fugitive attorney Eric C. Conn, a judge announced that former
clients who lost their disability benefits are entitled to a $31
million class-action lawsuit.

The judgment came down on June 16 morning in a Floyd County
Courtroom.

900 individuals lost their disability benefits after Conn's
admitted fraudulent scheme was uncovered by the Social Security
Administration. Two individuals committed suicide while others had
to struggle to find destroyed medical records.

Another lawsuit is still in motion and is attempting to sue Conn's
malpractice insurance. [GN]


EVANGER'S DOG: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Entis, writing for Food Safety News, reports that
Nicole and Guy Mael, whose dog Talula died after eating Evanger's
brand "Hunk of Beef Au Jus" canned dog food on New Year's Eve,
have filed a class action complaint against Evanger's Dog and Cat
Food Co. Inc. and its sister company Nutripack LLC.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on June 16, alleges fraud,
misrepresentation and negligence on the part of Evanger's and
Nutripack.  The complaint requests a jury trial.

The couple's five dogs all became ill after eating the Hunk of
Beef food.  They took them all to an emergency veterinary
facility.  Four of the five dogs survived, although one of the
survivors is currently being treated for seizures.

Lab analysis of Talula's stomach contents and of the remainder of
the contents of the can of Hunk of Beef revealed the presence of a
large quantity of pentobarbital.

Pentobarbital is a fast-acting barbiturate, and is used as a
veterinary euthanasia agent.  Its presence in any food or animal
feed renders the food or feed adulterated, according to the
federal law.

The Food and Drug Administration confirmed the presence of
pentobarbital by laboratory analysis of samples taken from sealed
cans of Evanger's Hunk of Beef Au Jus and Against The Grain
branded Pulled Beef with Gravy canned dog food, prompting
Evanger's to initiate a series of product recalls.

In addition to the pentobarbital finding, an inspection of
Evanger's production facility in Wheeling, IL, and of Nutripack's
facility in Markham, IL, revealed insanitary conditions in both
facilities, according to FDA.

The class action suit cites thirteen counts under federal,
Illinois, and Washington state law, based upon claims of:

   -- breach of implied warranty:
   -- breach of express warranty;
   -- unfair acts or practices;
   -- deceptive acts or practices;
   -- negligence;
   -- defective manufacture, design, and marketing;
   -- unjust enrichment;
   -- misrepresentation; and
   -- product adulteration and misbranding.

In addition to seeking restitution, estimated to exceed $5 million
from Evanger's and Nutripack, the plaintiffs have requested an
injunction to prevent the companies ". . . from continuing the
unlawful practices . . . including marketing or selling its
products that may be misrepresented, adulterated and misbranded,
and specifically falsely stating that they are USDA-inspected,
human-grade quality, 100 percent kosher beef and directing
defendants to engage in corrective action, or providing other
injunctive or equitable relief." [GN]


FANDUEL INC: "Parnell" Suit Alleges Bait-and-Switch Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of Arkansas fantasy sports players accuses FanDuel of
bait-and-switch advertising for running a series of TV ads that
they say falsely claimed the company would match new subscriber
deposits.

Lead plaintiff Chad Parnell says he deposited $200 into a new
FanDuel account based on an advertisement promising it would match
first-time subscriber deposits up to that amount.

FanDuel didn't match his deposit and intentionally deceived him
and other Arkansas residents, according to his class action filed
on June 22, in Garland County Circuit Court.

Parnell says the company's advertisements promoting its online
fantasy sports game instructed him and other class members to go
to its website and enter a particular promotion code in order to
receive the matching $200.

"The television ads were false, deceptive, unconscionable, and
operated as 'bait and switch' advertising, because they made an
attractive, but insincere offer as FanDuel did not intend to match
the initial $200 deposit with another $200," the complaint states.
"Although plaintiff and class members were new subscribers and
deposited $200 into the new account, FanDuel did not match the
plaintiff's or the class members' deposits."

A FanDuel spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit on
June 23.

Parnell and the proposed class seek damages for claims of
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment. They say the New
York-based company knew the advertisements were deceptive, and
that its misconduct was "excessive and unreasonable."

"Defendant will be unjustly enriched if it is allowed to retain
such funds," the June 22 lawsuit states.  "Plaintiff and each
class member are entitled to an amount equal to the amount
defendant has been unjustly enriched."

Parnell is represented by Scott Poynter with the Little Rock law
firm Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson PLLC:

          Nate Steel, Esq.
          E-mail: nate@swghfirm.com
          Marshall Wright, Esq.
          E-mail: marshall@swghfirm.com
          Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq.
          E-mail: jeremy@swghfirm.com
          Scott Poynter, Of Counsel
          E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
          STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY HUTCHINSON, PLLC
          400 W. Capitol Ave, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Tel: (501) 251-1587


FARMERS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Alameda County business alleges that an insurance company
has invaded its privacy with its solicitation calls to its
cellphone.

Abante Rooter & Plumbing filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Farmers Group Inc.,
Farmers Insurance, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in 2016, it
suffered damages from receiving several unwanted calls from the
defendant in its attempt to sell its services. The plaintiff holds
Farmers Group Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
used an automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiff
without having a business relationship.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, injunctive relief, $1,500 in treble damages and any other
relief as the court deems just. It is represented by Joshua
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and Yana Hart,
Esq. -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- of Hyde and Swigart in San
Diego and by Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. -- ak@kazlg.com -- of
Kazerouni Law Group in Costa Mesa.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-03315-LB [GN]


FINANCIAL ASSET: "Woods" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KEVIN WOODS, individually, and on all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01775-
PSG-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January
22, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., before the Hon. Judge Philip Gutierrez of
the United States District Court, Central District of California,
for an order to certify the following classes:

   "all persons residing in the United States, who, within the
   one year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received
   collection correspondence from Defendant that failed to
   disclose in writing that the alleged debt will be assumed
   valid unless disputed within 30 days;

   "all persons residing in the United States, who, within the
   one year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received
   collection correspondence from Defendant that failed to
   disclose in writing that Defendant must verify the debt if
   Plaintiff disputes the debt within 30 days; and

   "all persons residing in the United States, who, within one
   year preceding the filing of this Complaint, received
   collection correspondence from Defendant that failed to
   disclose that the balance of the alleged debt may increase due
   to accrued interest or fees".

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for his appointment as
Class Representatives, and for appointment of Plaintiff's
attorneys as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLUOR CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Army Contract in Afghanistan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Stanley, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge on June 15 rejected a putative class action against Fluor
Corp. from contractors who claimed the company failed to pay
overtime on a contract in Afghanistan, ruling the country's labor
code does not apply to foreign citizens without work permits.
Contractors for Fluor, led by plaintiff Carrie Allen, claimed the
company shorted contractors on a noncombat support contract for
the U.S. Army by more than $5 million collectively, when it failed
to pay them overtime wages despite working them 12 hours a day,
seven days a week, in violation of the Afghanistan Labor Code.

But U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater sided with Fluor in
finding that the labor code does not apply to the contractors, who
registered with Afghanistan's Investment Support Agency but were
not required to apply for work permits in order to provide
services that included housing, construction, fuel, meal and
laundry services for U.S. soldiers under the contract.

"Based on the evidence of foreign law submitted by the parties,
including expert declarations, the court concludes that the
Afghanistan Labor Code does not apply to plaintiffs. The code, by
its terms, applies to foreign citizens who have obtained or will
later obtain work permits, and not to other foreign citizens," the
decision states.

The Afghanistan Labor Code requires employers to pay an hourly
wage premium of 25 percent for work day hours in excess of 40 per
week and a 50 percent premium on weekends or holidays.

But under the Bilateral Security Agreement between the U.S. and
Afghanistan, military contractors are required to register with
the Afghan Investment Support Agency, but not to apply for work
permits.

Fluor argued the requirement implicitly exempts U.S. contractors
from the permitting process and, by extension, from the labor law
that is limited to foreign persons who have obtained or will
obtain work permits.

Judge Fitzwater denied the contractors a second crack at a claim,
saying "it is not apparent that plaintiffs can cure the defects in
their case by repleading."

The contractors, Judge Fitzwater added, were given the opportunity
to amend their complaint after Fluor entered its motion to
dismiss, and declined to do so.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The contractors are represented by Richard P. Kinnan, Esq. --
rkinnan@elllaw.com -- of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, U. Lawrence
Boze, Esq. of U. Lawrence Boze & Associates PC and Royce West,
Esq. -- royce.w@westllp.com -- and Veretta Frazier, Esq. --
veretta.f@westllp.com --  of West & Associates LLP.

Fluor is represented by Christopher LaVigne, Esq. --
lavigne@gtlaw.com -- Steve Walkowiak, Esq. -- walkowiak@gtlaw.com
-- and Jordan Cowman, Esq. -- cowmanj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig LLP.

The case is Allen et al. v. Fluor Corp., case number 3:16-cv-
01219, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. [GN]

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
at https://is.gd/gMp7uT from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL CREDIT: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Stephen Guthrie, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Global
Credit & Collection Corp., a Delaware corporation and Velocity
Magistrate Judge Schenkier Investments, LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01390 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for class certification of:

   "all persons similarly situated in the State of Alabama from
   whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent, time-barred
   CitiFinancial/Santander Consumer vehicle loan debt, via the
   same form collection letter, that Defendants Global and
   Velocity sent to Plaintiff, where the date of last payment is
   more than 4 years from the date of the collection letter, from
   one year before the date of the Complaint to the present".

The Plaintiff's complaint, filed on February 23, 2017, sets forth
that, by sending a form collection letter to collect a delinquent,
time-barred consumer debt, Defendants Global Credit & Collection
Corp. and Velocity Investments, made false, deceptive or
misleading statements, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nRtc2m7f

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539 9899
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com
          http://www.bondnbotes.com


GOOGLE INC: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval on $5.5MM Wage Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on June 16 preliminarily approved Google Inc. and staffing
agency's UrpanTech's deal paying a combined $5.5 million to
resolve a putative class action alleging the companies failed to
pay contract recruiters overtime, saying the class notice needs to
be tweaked, but overall it is a good settlement.

During a hearing in San Jose, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge
Brian C. Walsh said he would adopt his tentative ruling approving
the deal, after he tweaks the language in the notice. As it is,
the notice wrongly suggests that class members must submit a
written objection if they plan to attend a final fairness hearing
on Nov. 17 to protest the deal, the judge said.

"If you show up at the hearing, you can object even if you haven't
submitted an objection," he said.

If approved, the deal would mark an end to a putative class action
launched by lead plaintiff Tymuoi Ha after she received a one-year
contract to work for Google as a contract recruiter through Urpan
Technologies Inc., a staffing agency based in Silicon Valley.

But once hired, Ha was allegedly instructed not to report more
than a certain capped amount of overtime, even though she
regularly worked 12 or more hours in a workday and worked on
weekends.

In January 2014, Ha complained to her manager at Google about not
receiving overtime pay, but her manager allegedly told her there
was nothing he could do, the suit says. Ha was then contacted by
her manager's boss at Google, who told her that her complaint was
inappropriate and she needed to apologize. Shortly after, she was
fired, the suit says.

Ha filed suit in January 2016 on behalf of herself and other
contract recruiters. The suit alleges Google's policy was to
restrict the amount of overtime paid to individual contract
recruiters, regardless of the amount of overtime they worked.

According to the complaint, contract recruiters are employees of
both UrpanTech and Google, which controlled their wages, hours and
working conditions. The contract recruiters allegedly work
alongside Google employees and perform the same work. They are
also supervised by Google managers, and are subject to Google's
policies, the suit says. The complaint also notes that Google
determines overtime payments, even though UrpanTech issues
paychecks.

The suit sought up to $17 million in unpaid overtime and it
alleged the companies violated multiple state labor and business
statutes. It also asserted individual claims by Ha for wrongful
termination and retaliation and a class claim for violating the
Private Attorneys General Act.

After conducting discovery and entering mediation, the parties
reached the proposed $5.5 million settlement in March that would
resolve class claims, but leave Ha's individual claims unresolved.

Under the deal, the companies would make a $75,000 payment to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency to account for
the PAGA claim, and class attorneys would receive approximately
$1.8 million for fees and expenses.

That would leave approximately $3.48 million to be distributed to
class members based on their weeks worked and billing rates during
the class period, resulting in an average recovery of $4,380 for
each of the 795 members of the class, according to court
documents.

During a hearing on a motion for preliminary settlement approval
on June 16, Judge Walsh said multiple times that it was a good
settlement for the class.

Michael Douglas Palmer of Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, who
represents the recruiters, told Judge Walsh that he had caught a
few minor typos in the notice and he asked the judge for
permission to modify it.

Judge Walsh asked Palmer to submit a version of the notice with
his requested alterations. The judge added that he wants the
notice to be more clear about how class members can object to the
deal. After a short debate over the notice's precise language, the
judge said he would make the changes.

"Let me tweak it," the judge said. "There's no sense in doing this
by committee."

The recruiters are represented by Michael Douglas Palmer, Esq. --
dpalmer@sanfordheisler.com  and Xinying Valerian, Esq. --
xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP

Google is represented by Thomas E. Geidt, Esq. --
tomgeidt@gbgllp.com -- of Grube Brown & Geidt LLP. UrpanTech is
represented by Marquis Owens, Esq. -- marquis@mowenslaw.com

The case is case number Tymuoi Ha et al. v. Google Inc. et al.,
case number 16CV290847, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara. [GN]


GRUBHUB INC: Wants Class Lead Plaintiff to be Sanctioned
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports Grubhub Inc. on June 15
moved for sanctions in California federal court against a lead
plaintiff in a proposed wage-and-overtime class action, accusing
him of violating a protective order in the case by publicly
disclosing nearly 300 pages of material designated as
"confidential."

The online food delivery company bid for sanctions said Grubhub
driver and named plaintiff Raef Lawson publicly filed the
company's confidential material and failed to immediately take
action to inform Grubhub and remove the filing from the court's
docket, adding that the allegedly offending document known as the
"Liss-Riordan declaration" was not timely filed.

"Plaintiff readily admits that the public dissemination of
Grubhub's confidential material in violation of the court's order
was done willfully to avoid missing a filing deadline due to
'technical issues' with preparing redacted versions of his
opposition brief and the Liss-Riordan declaration," Grubhub said.
"Plaintiff made no effort to advise Grubhub of this technical
issue or to find a solution that would not result in the
disclosure of confidential information."

Grubhub alleged that Lawson "willfully" violated the terms of the
stipulated protective order that U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
Scott Corley entered on May 11 when he publicly filed the nearly
300 pages of unredacted material as attachments to the declaration
of plaintiffs' counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan in support of the
plaintiffs' summary judgment opposition brief.

Lawson, who has worked for GrubHub in Los Angeles since August
2015, and co-lead plaintiff Andrew Tan, a San Francisco-based
driver since June 2015, argue in their suit filed in November 2015
that they bear the cost of car expenses, gas, parking and phone
data service plans. They say their weekly pay rates dip below
California's minimum wage due to these costs.

Lawson has alleged violations of the California Labor Code through
GrubHub's policy of requiring drivers to pay certain expenses,
while also claiming the company failed to pay minimum wage and
overtime. He also alleges unfair business practices. Both Lawson
and Tan are bringing a claim for penalties under the state's
Private Attorney General Act.

In July 2016, Judge Corley ruled the delivery driver plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged facts to support claims they were denied
minimum wage and overtime pay by being misclassified as
independent contractors. The ruling enabled the putative class of
California GrubHub delivery drivers to continue in their suit
against the Chicago-based online food delivery service.

Yet Judge Corley granted GrubHub's motion to deny class
certification on the basis that Lawson does not have standing to
be the class representative because while other drivers signed
arbitration agreements with class action waivers, Lawson opted
out. The court also said it would allow the suit to be amended to
add a plaintiff who did not opt out of arbitration.

According to the motion for sanctions, Lawson's opposition to
Grubhub's motion for summary judgment was due on June 8, and
Lawson filed his opposition brief at 11:54 p.m. that night without
redaction or sealing. At 12:11 a.m. on June 9, Grubhub received
notice of the Liss-Riordan declaration's electronic filing,
Grubhub said.

Early on June 9, Grubhub noticed that Lawson filed Grubhub's
confidential material publicly and emailed his counsel at 5:01
a.m. Pacific Time, according to the motion for sanctions, which
alleged that Lawson's counsel had not contacted Grubhub to notify
it of the unauthorized disclosure.

Thomas Fowler of Liss-Riordan PC replied moments later to
Grubhub's email, stating that due to "technical issues" he had
trouble getting a redacted version of Lawson's brief prepared for
filing, Grubhub said.

"He added that he would 'talk to the clerk as soon as the court
opens' to ensure that 'the unredacted version is taken off the
public docket,'" according to the motion for sanctions. "Grubhub
explained to Mr. Fowler the 'problematic' nature of plaintiff's
actions and that 'plaintiff can't just file [Grubhub's]
confidential materials publicly to make the filing deadline.'"

Shannon Liss-Riordan told Law360 in an email on June 16 that
Grubhub's motion was "making a mountain out of a molehill."

"Our office had some technical difficulties getting the redactions
made to a filing, so papers were on file overnight for less than
10 hours until we could get them sealed," she said. "There was
nothing in these papers that was truly confidential, and Grubhub
was not harmed in any way by this technical issue."

Grubhub requests that the Court impose all sanctions that it deems
appropriate to remedy and punish Plaintiff's violation of the
Stipulated Protective Order, including by striking the Declaration
of Shannon Liss-Riordan in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to
the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 111), the filing of which
publicly disclosed nearly 300 pages of material designated by
Grubhub as "Confidential," and awarding Grubhub attorneys' fees
and costs associated with Plaintiff's wrongful disclosure.

A spokesperson for GrubHub declined to comment on June 16, saying
the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Legal counsel for GrubHub did not respond to a request for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- and Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. --
mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC and by Thomas
Fowler, Esq. -- tfowler@llrlaw.com --.

GrubHub is represented by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Theane Evangelis, Esq. --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq. --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Michele L. Maryott, Esq. --
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- and Kevin J. Ring-Dowell, Esq. --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Andrew Tan and Raef Lawson v. GrubHub Inc. et al.,
case number 3:15-cv-05128, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]


GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: $6.1MM Settlement in "Munoz" Case Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Sacramento, California, approved a $6.1 million
settlement, including $1.7 million in attorneys' fees and costs,
to settle the wage class action Rafael Munoz et al. v. Giumarra
Vineyards Corp.

The case is captioned, RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORP., Defendant. Case 1:09-cv-00703-AWI-JLT
(E.D. Cal., June 21, 2017).


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RUDEL CORPORATION, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02229-AET-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff shall move before the Hon.
Judge Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge, on July 17,
2017, for an Order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "Merchants who processed with Heartland and were charged an
      American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014
      account statements, retroactively implementing an increased
      American Express Discount Fee, and that Heartland charged
      that increased rate for transactions occurring between
      November 1, 2014 and December 15, 2014";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Rudel Corporation as Class
      Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class
      Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.,
            Raymond Barto, Esq.
            SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
            32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: (212) 421 6492
            Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
            E-mail: STEPHEN@SFCLASSLAW.COM
                      RAYMOND@SFCLASSLAW.COM


INSIGHT GLOBAL: "Barker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOHN BARKER, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT
GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and SECOND
AMENDED AND RESTATED INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC 2013 INCENTIVE UNIT PLAN,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-07186-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Barker
will move the Court on November 16, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman for class certification of:

   "all persons employed at any time by Defendant and Counter-
   Claimant Insight Global, LLC in California during the period
   from December 15, 2012 to the present who signed an employment
   agreement with Insight or received an offer letter from
   Insight that contained a non-solicitation of customers and
   clients provision".

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Olga Savage, Esq.
          PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
          1117 S. California Ave., Suite 200
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 645 9027
          Facsimile: (650) 687 8323
          E-mail: tyler.paetkau@procopio.com


IOWA: Faces Putative Class Suit Over Benefits Cut
-------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Health Care, reports that
Iowa's privately run Medicaid program has been accused of cutting
benefits that allow disabled beneficiaries to live independently
in their communities.

Six Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries with serious disabilities sued
Gov. Kim Reynolds and the head of the state Human Services
Department in a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court on
June 12, alleging the state's contracted managed-care
organizations cut their monthly cost allowances for home- and
community-based care, even though there has been no change in
their care needs.

Approximately 15,000 Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries with serious
disabilities ranging from multiple sclerosis to intellectual
disabilities and brain injuries may have been impacted by the cuts
since Iowa shifted to private, for-profit managed care plans in
April 2016.

Iowa's Medicaid program has several waivers available to fund care
services for individuals who prefer to live independently rather
than in institutional facilities. While some of these programs
have monthly cost limits, the plaintiffs each had received
variances to increase their care budgets to facilitate independent
living.

The complaint alleged that Iowa's three managed-care organizations
started cutting care services budgets this year, in violation of
the Social Security Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.

"The plans claimed they had lost too much money on their Medicaid
contracts, and began cutting these members' necessary home and
community-based services without any significant changes to their
health needs, giving them neither notice nor an opportunity to
appeal," the complaint said. "The state has violated its legal
obligations by failing to correct the illegal practices of its
agents."

Although Iowa's managed-care organization contracts allow the
companies to reject variance requests, they are not allowed to
arbitrarily cut beneficiaries' staffing or services without
clinical documentation. The contracts also encourage managed-care
organizations to work with beneficiaries to keep their costs under
budget, according to the complaint.

But managed-care organizations aren't following those directions,
the plaintiffs said.

"The defendants have cut the budget of members, without regard to
medical necessity, or the needs or preferences based on
assessments, the recommendations of their interdisciplinary teams
or their individualized service plans."

Also, the managed-care organizations only approve the
beneficiaries' managed-care plans via short-term reauthorizations
rather than annual evaluations, and one managed-care organization
has informed care providers that it would reduce their contracted
rates, the complaint said. This drops funding down to 2013 levels,
which the plaintiffs said would not cover current care costs.

The plaintiffs have asked the federal court to grant the suit
class-action status, prevent the state and managed-care
organizations from cutting their benefits and award them
attorneys' fees and costs for bringing the lawsuit. [GN]


J.C. CHRISTENSEN: Class Provisionally Certified in "Carroll" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JAMES CARROLL, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.C. CHRISTENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-06403-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. District Judge Brain R.
Martinotti, entered an order provisionally certifying a class of:

   "all New Jersey consumers who were sent letters and/or notices
   from JCC, on or after August 25, 2014 and through present,
   attempting to collect a debt for LVNV Funding LLC that was
   time-barred by the statute of limitations and offered a
   repayment of monthly payments, without disclosing that JCC or
   LVNV Funding LLC was barred from taking any legal action to
   collect the obligation and/or did not disclose that the
   applicable statute of limitations could reset or begin anew
   upon making the payments or upon entering into an agreement
   to begin making payments".

The class includes approximately 3,460 persons.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TOHht7WW


JETSMARTER INC: Lamey Seeks Certification of Managers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GRACE LAMEY, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JETSMARTER, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and SERGEY PETROS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
61217-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for an Order:

   1. granting conditional certification pursuant to Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA), and issuing Notice to:

      "all Shuttle Experience Managers (SEMs) however variously
      titled, employed by JETSMARTER at any locations throughout
      the United States -- including but not necessarily limited
      to in Florida, New York, New Jersey, California, Washington
      D.C., Massachusetts, Illinois, and Georgia -- during any
      work weeks between July 2014 and the present to inform them
      of their right to join this lawsuit;

   2. directing JETSMARTER to produce a computer readable data
      (i.e., Excel) file containing the names, addresses,
      telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and social security
      numbers of SEMs however variously titled, within 15 days of
      the Courts Order granting Plaintiff's motion; and

   3. approving proposed Class Notice and Consent to Become Party
      Plaintiff Forms to be issued via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and
      over the Internet, and providing for the electronic
      submission of Consent Forms.

According to the complaint, on June 20, 2017, Ms. Lamey filed a
Complaint pursuant alleging overtime violations of the FLSA on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated SEMs of JETSMARTER.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that JETSMARTER has
failed to pay Plaintiffs and Defendants' other SEMs throughout the
United States for the overtime hours SEMs have worked between June
2014 and the present based upon Defendants' misclassification of
SEMs as exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA, with
JETSMARTER primarily paying salaried wages to SEMs for 40 hours of
work per week -- without time and one -- half wages for all of the
actual hours worked by SEMs in excess of 40 hours per week for
Defendants -- all while JETSMARTER also failed to maintain time
records of the actual start times, stop times, number of hours
worked each day, and total hours worked each week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o3foBiOj

Attorney for Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs:

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


L'OREAL USA: "Valrie" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ella B. Valrie, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated V. L'Oreal USA, Inc. and
Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00306, filed on February
24, 2017, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on June 15, 2017. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00270-CG-B to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants operate a beauty products company in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: brandy@hgdlawfirm.com
              wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph L. Tucker, Esq.
      JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
      Black Diamond Building
      2229 1st Avenue N.
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 252-3535
      Facsimile: (205) 252-3536
      E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Leslie K. Eason, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLC
      3455 Peachtree Road, Suite 1500
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 869-9054
      Facsimile: (678) 389-8475
      E-mail: leason@gordonrees.com


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Court Denies to Certify Class in "Scroggins"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARILYN R. SCROGGINS, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH,
a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00338-WKW-CSC (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. District Judge W. Keith Watkins entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class without prejudice to
refile after further discovery is conducted.

The Court further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for leave to
conduct class discovery is denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2P6Nswjr


LKM ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Employees Class in "Mahrous"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HASSAN MAHROUS, HAMED YOUSEF, AND MURAD
MUBARAK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v. LKM ENTERPRISES, LLC, LKM
CONVENIENCE, LLC AND LENNY MOTWANI, Case No. 2:16-cv-10141-SSV-KWR
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Sarah S. Vance entered an order:

   1. conditionally certify a class of:

      "all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who
      have been employed by LKM Enterprises, LLC; LKM
      Convenience, LLC and Lenny Motwani d/b/a "Brothers Food
      Mart" and/or "Magnolia Express," or which were subsequently
      known as "Magnolia Express," in the State of Louisiana
      during the time period of June 30, 2012 through the
      present".

   2. directing parties to meet and confer in good faith
      regarding the notice and consent forms that will be
      distributed to class members within 15 days of the entry of
      this order. The parties shall submit a joint proposed
      notice and consent form to the Court within 21 days of the
      entry of this order. If the parties are unable to agree,
      the parties shall each submit to the Court within 21 days
      of this order: (1) their proposed notice and consent forms
      and (2) their objections, with supporting authority, to the
      opposing party's notice and consent forms;

   3. directing defendants to have 30 days from the date of this
      order to provide plaintiffs with a computer-readable
      database containing all potential opt-in plaintiffs' names,
      last known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and email
      addresses. If there is any dispute or uncertainty regarding
      whether an individual is a potential opt-in plaintiff, the
      defendants shall produce the individual's information; and

   4. directing potential class members to opt in to this
      collective action if they provide their consent forms to
      plaintiffs' counsel no later than 90 days from the date the
      Court approves notice. Plaintiff's counsel shall file
      consent forms with the Court on an ongoing basis and no
      later than two weeks after the end of the 90-day period.

The Court acknowledges that plaintiffs may face additional
difficulties in contacting potential class members as a result of
the passage of time since the third amended complaint was filed,
but finds that an opt-in period of 90 days from the date the Court
approves notice is sufficient.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l4n5Esuz


MAJU PUNCAKBUMI: Faces Class Action Over GRR Scheme
---------------------------------------------------
Eva Yeong, writing for The Sun Daily, reports that property
investors who are considering guaranteed rental return (GRR)
schemes, which promise a fixed rental income for house buyers for
a certain period of time, should proceed with caution as such
schemes are not governed by the Housing Development (Control &
Licensing) Act.

"The sale and purchase agreement (SPA) is covered by the Act but
the GRR scheme is not.  Thus, if there is a case it will be
brought to the civil court," National House Buyers Association
(HBA) secretary-general Chang Kim Loong told SunBiz.

Two weeks ago a group of house buyers announced a class action
suit against one such GRR project.  The case involves a serviced
apartment project named The Arc @ Cyberjaya developed by Maju
Puncakbumi Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Meda Inc Bhd, and
marketed by Andaman Property Management Sdn Bhd.

The project came with two types of schemes, one for up to six
years and another for up to 25 years with a gross 8% rental income
per annum for the first term, of three and four years
respectively.  Buyers were given an option agreement to sign for
the GRR scheme when they signed the SPA.  They were also shown a
copy of a memorandum of understanding signed with the Multimedia
University to rent the units at The Arc.  Unfortunately, many
buyers stopped receiving their rental after a year, from as far
back as March 2016.

Despite serving letters of demand and, later, two collective
notice of demand for two groups of buyers, which were ignored by
the developer and the marketing firm, the affected buyers decided
to initiate legal action and have since filed a class action suit
in an attempt to claim the rentals owed to them.

In most cases, Chang said, the GRR scheme is not offered by the
property developer but by a subsidiary company or a marketing
company that manages the rentals and while the Act regulates the
property developer, it does not regulate the other firms.

In the past, he said, there had been cases of such companies not
honouring the GRR schemes and many buyers approached HBA to seek
advice.  However, the cases were not worth pursuing due to the
high cost of taking legal action.

"There have been cases in the past filed by individual owners.
There have been a handful of cases over the years but while some
of these individuals won, these cases were against shell
companies.  These owners only won a paper judgment," he added.

While some investors may approach the Tribunal for Consumer
Claims, the total amount that can be claimed is capped at
RM25,000.  The tribunal is an independent body established under
the Consumer Protection Act 1999 to hear and determine claims
filed by consumers under the Act.

CBRE-WTW managing director Foo Gee Jen said GRR schemes generally
"grow" in a cycle, when the market is in a challenging
environment.

"It is one of the ways for developers to attract buyers and give
some assurance to recoup their instalment.  When you see such
schemes being offered, it is a sign of a weakening market. In a
booming market, I don't think developers would be willing to offer
guaranteed rental returns," he said.

GRR schemes are applicable for investment properties, mostly for
the recurring income.  It is most often offered with hotel or
resort properties, SoHo/SoVo units, student accommodation and some
serviced apartments.

"My advice is to be cautious when considering such propositions.
Are you paying the market price or developer's selling price? It
(GRR) is mostly factored in (the selling price),"said Foo.

He said such schemes have been around since the mid-1980s and one
such project where the scheme worked out was Century Mahkota by
Lion Group.

"I would not say it is a great success but they were able to
deliver.  It is still ongoing.  One reason is that Malacca is a
tourism hotspot, thus the group was able to sustain.  The scheme
was for seven years which was fulfilled and subsequently on a
yearly basis," he added. [GN]


MATTOON TOWNSHIP, IL: Faces Class Action Over High Property Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Lauterbach, writing for Cherokee Tribune & Ledger-News
Business, reports that property owners in a downstate community
have filed a lawsuit with the county after their property taxes
skyrocketed by up to 400 percent in one year.

The class action lawsuit on behalf of the more than 500 business
properties in Mattoon Township claims the county hired an
inexperienced assessor to update their property values, which
hadn't been updated since 2000.  If true, this would violate state
law.

Plaintiff Robb Perry says they're seeking nearly $1 million that
was collected in higher taxes last year in a federal class action
suit.

"It's not because we're just whining about taxes," he said.  "This
is just ungodly wrong.  It's just wrong."

Mr. Perry said Coles County reassessed the one township and left
the others, leading to massive hikes on Mattoon businesses, while
others actually dropped.

"You cannot pull one township aside and tax only them at a higher
rate," he said, calling it a violation of the Constitution's Equal
Protection Clause.

The filing tells the story about the process in which the county
hired an independent assessor to give new values to the township's
business properties.  The lawsuit claims assessor had no
experience in mass assessments, rather than assessing one parcel
at a time.  Being admittedly unqualified, he promised to take a
class on the process.  The suit indicates the candidate never took
the class before making the assessments.

The suit was filed on June 9 in U.S. District Court in Urbana.

County Board Chairman Stan Metzger would not respond to questions
about the lawsuit. [GN]


MAZOR ROBOTICS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Aug. 8
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Mazor Robotics
Ltd. (NASDAQ: MZOR) to the securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and to the August 8, 2017 Lead Plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities of MZOR between
November 8, 2016 and June 8, 2017 and suffered losses contact
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/MZOR or contact Reed Kathrein, who
is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing -- MZOR@hbsslaw.com

On June 8, 2017, Mazor announced that in May 2017 the Israeli
Securities Authority ("ISA") conducted a search at the offices of
Mazor and also questioned certain officers in connection with an
investigation held by the ISA.  This news drove the price of
Mazor's ADRs down almost 10% to close at $33.67 that day.  On June
9, 2017 the price of Mazor's ADRs fell another 9.1% to close at
$30.59 on June 9, 2017.

"We're focused on events as they unfold and certainly on whether
Mazor engaged in improper accounting that triggered the ISA's
search," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
MZOR should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email MZOR@hbsslaw.com.

                         About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with offices in 10 cities.  The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the Firm and its successes can be
found at www.hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom
or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: May Face Suit Over Insurance Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Thomson, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that shares in car leasing and finance group McMillan
Shakespeare plunged 9 per cent on June 19 after an article in The
Australian Financial Review revealed the company will soon face a
class action launched by customers of its warranty and add-on
insurance products.

McMillan Shakespeare shares fell 9 per cent in morning trade to
$12.70, before recovering slightly to close down 6.2 per cent at
$13.11.

Financial Review columnist Adele Ferguson revealed that global
litigation funder Vannin Capital and law firm Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan plan to launch an $80 million class action
against McMillan Shakespeare in the next month, alleging unfair
and unconscionable conduct and misleading and deceptive conduct in
its extended car warranty business, which is called Davantage,
which trades as National Warranty Companies (NWC).

Davantage is a subsidiary of Presidian Holdings, which McMillan
Shakespeare acquired in February 2015 as part of a diversification
strategy.

McMillan Shakespeare said in a statement to the ASX on June 19
that it was yet to be provided with full details of the claim.

But the company said that it appeared a number of the claims
related to a period between 2011 and 2015 and said NWC did not
start trading until June 2013.

"It appears that a significant portion of the relevant period to
which the claim relates is in respect of a time when Davantage
neither owned the business trading as 'National Warranty Company',
nor was Davantage itself in existence," the company said.

Earlier in the day the company said the warranty product business
contributes 5 per cent of its underlying net profit.

McMillan Shakespeare said it wrote 39,300 warranty polices during
the December half, down 0.3 per cent on the previous corresponding
period, and had installed a new leadership team in its risk unit
(which covers warranties and insurance) to focus on "leveraging
scale and technology to drive performance".

But the company warned investors that the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission is reviewing how add-on insurance
products are sold, although it said this would affect a "small
component" of its retail finance business.

Shares in rival novated leasing group SG Fleet were also hit on
June 19, falling 3.3 per cent to $3.52. It sells extended warranty
products with its novated lease products which are underwritten
through Allianz Australia.

Allianz was one of seven general insurers -- including QBE
Insurance and MTA Insurance, which is part of Suncorp Group --
that were subject to review by the corporate regulator last year
over add-on insurance problems.

ASIC senior executive leader Michael Saadat said the regulator
remained concerned about the design and sale of add-on insurance
products and "will shortly consult on a range of regulatory
proposals to improve consumer outcomes -- including a possible
deferred sales regime".

"We are also aware of poor consumer outcomes arising from the sale
of extended warranties with cars, and while some of these products
may not be insurance, we expect that providers of warranties
should be actively addressing their practices to avoid these
outcomes," Mr Saadat said.

"We are also considering our regulatory options in relation to the
unfair sale of warranties." [GN]


MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: Responds to AFR Report on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Amir, writing for Finance News Network, reports that
McMillan Shakespeare Limited has responded to the June 19
Australian Financial Review (AFR) newspaper story saying the
proposed nature of the claim, that it will be hit with a $80
million class action is based on allegations.

The salary packing and car leasing company says no claims have
been served, that the allegations are based on.

McMillan Shakespeare says the allegations may be based on alleged
unconscionable conduct by its warranty product business, Presidian
Holdings, which it acquired in 2015.

The company says as there were no claims served, it is unable to
make a comment on the likelihood, merits or otherwise of the
proposed claim.

McMillan Shakespeare's warranty product business contributes 5 per
cent of the Group's underlying net profit after tax.

Shares in McMillan Shakespeare Limited are trading 4.44 per cent
lower to $13.35. [GN]


MDL 2353: Class, Subclasses Sought in Tropicana Orange Juice Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:11-cv-07382-WJM-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs shall move before the Hon. Judge William J. Martini,
U.S.D.J. at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey for certification
of a Class and four state subclasses, for appointment of
Plaintiffs as Class representatives, and for appointment of James
E. Cecchi and Stephen A. Weiss as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jEUNg26O

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700

               - and -

          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Parvin K. Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 584-0700

               - and -

          Samuel Issacharoff, Esq.
          40 Washington Square South
          New York, New York, 10012
          Tel: (212) 998-6580


MICHIGAN: Family Court Judge Sues over Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a 68-year-old Michigan man
claims in a federal class action in Detroit that he is barred from
running for re-election as a family court judge due to a state law
prohibiting the election or appointment of judges over the age of
70.

The case is, HON. MICHAEL J. THEILE, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE RUTH JOHNSON, CHIEF
ELECTIONS OFFICER, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-12066 (E.D. Mich.).

Counsel to Plaintiff:

     Michael B. Rizik Jr., Esq.
     RIZIK & RIZIK
     9400 South Saginaw Street, Ste E
     Grand Blanc, MI 48439
     Tel: 810-953-6000
     Fax: 810-953-6005
     Cell: 810-610-2673
     Email: lawyers@riziklaw.com


MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: Pays Floaters to Prevent Threatened Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Missoulan reported that Missoula County has sent letters and
reimbursement checks totaling more than $6,000 to 28 people whose
cars were towed near the Kona Bridge Fishing Access over the
Fourth of July weekend last year.

Former University of Montana law professor and dean Greg Munro and
his family were among the groups affected. He said when they went
to drop off a vehicle and found the parking lot full, they decided
to drive farther down Kona Ranch Road and pulled off the shoulder,
parking behind a long line of other vehicles.

When asked last summer about the incident, sheriff's office
spokeswoman Brenda Bassett said deputies called in the tow trucks
because of complaints from residents in the area, and because the
road and parking lot had become so congested it posed a danger if
an emergency happened and an ambulance or fire engine had to
respond to the scene.

Munro said the only "no parking" signs he saw were right next to
the lot.

"People who parked 100 yards away had no idea, and nobody was
infringing on the roadway," he said. "Montanans know they get to
park on the shoulders of rural highways."

In March 2016, the county commissioners passed a resolution
banning parking for 1,200 feet from the west end of the Kona Ranch
Bridge and along Sandalwood Court, citing concerns from local
residents and the sheriff's office.

Munro said he and the other floaters were "shocked" when they
arrived at the access point at the end of their day to find their
cars gone. Munro said he had to borrow a phone from another
floater to call and find out where his vehicle had been impounded,
and that he was never issued a citation.

"The more I thought about that, I said, 'Wait, this is
preposterous,'" Munro said. "They simply grabbed people's
property, impounded it, locked it up and said, 'You can't have it
until a company says how much you have to pay.'"

Bassett said on June 15 a few citations were issued, but that
citations aren't required for a vehicle to be towed.

After the incident, Munro contacted Missoula attorney Nicole
Siefert and asked her to begin putting together a class action
lawsuit on behalf of the people whose cars were towed. In January,
Siefert sent a letter to the county about that plan.

In April, the county sent letters and checks to the 28 vehicle
owners, including Munro, who according to records had their cars
towed. Erica Grinde, director of risk management and benefits for
the county, said the total amounts of the checks issued was
$6,298.75.

In the letters sent with the checks, the county denied any
wrongdoing, and said that by accepting the money, recipients
agreed not to pursue any legal action on the matter.

After the county received the demand letter from Munro's attorney
alerting it to the class action suit, Grinde said the
commissioners considered both the validity of the claim as well as
the resources it would take to defend the county in the case.

The letter sent to each of the vehicle owners says the
commissioners do not believe the claims have merit and that the
sheriff's office was justified and within the law to tow the
vehicles.

"However, in looking at the resources it would take to defend the
threatened class-action suit brought forth by Mr. Munro and his
counsel, the commission concluded the appropriate thing as
stewards of taxpayer monies was resolving the claim through
reimbursement of the towing fees imposed," Grinde said.

Siefert said that because the county sent out the letters and
money, Munro has decided not to pursue the lawsuit.

"It was a reasonable action for the county to take and we applaud
them for taking responsibility," she said.

After hearing complaints from others who said they didn't see "no
parking" signs along the road, the county installed more signs
shortly after the Fourth of July weekend. Katie Klietz,
communications coordinator for the county, said on June 15 the
public works department is installing new signs along Kona Ranch
Road that will better delineate the area where parking is
prohibited and include a warning that vehicles may be towed.

"This area has restricted parking to ensure public safety and to
allow for emergency vehicles to safely access the area," she said.

She also said the sheriff's office is developing public service
announcements about the parking areas that will be put out in
advance of the Fourth of July holiday this year.

Munro said he is concerned that the vehicles were towed simply
because people living around the bridge complained.

"There is a problem that residents start thinking that the highway
that runs in front of their house is their personal property and
that's dead wrong," he said. "Government at any level can't, just
because they are perturbed by your behavior, seize your property."

Klietz said the county commissioners are reviewing the area to
make sure the public has "adequate access to the recreation areas
without disturbing the local landowners." [GN]


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Townsend, et al. Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TOWNSEND et al., the Plaintiffs, v. MONSTER
BEVERAGE CORPORATION et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:12-cv-
02188-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
October 16, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., in the courtroom of the Hon. Judge
Virginia A. Phillips, United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   "all persons who purchased the original Monster Energy drink
   for personal use and not for resale from December 12, 2008 to
   the present ("Energy Class"); and

   "all persons who purchased Monster Rehab Tea + Lemonade +
   Energy, Monster Rehab Rojo Tea + Energy, Monster Rehab Green
   Tea + Energy, Monster Rehab Protean + Energy, and Monster
   Rehab Tea + Orangeade + Energy (collectively "Monster Rehab")
   for personal use and not for resale from March 1, 2011 to the
   present ("Rehab Class").

The Plaintiffs assert that defendants Monster Beverage Corporation
and Monster Energy Company (Monster) made uniform
misrepresentations on the Monster Drink cans. The
misrepresentations on Monster Energy cans during the Energy class
period are cans.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=449fAtyQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONTGOMERY, AL: 11th Circuit Remands Red Light Camera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
US News reports federal appeals judges say a lawsuit over red
light cameras can move ahead in Alabama state court.

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that attorneys filed a class
action against the city of Montgomery and American Traffic
Solutions Inc. in 2015.

The company supplies the system that sends photos of potential red
light violations to the Montgomery Police Department. Officers
review the photos and mail a ticket to a vehicle's owner if they
determine a violation was legitimate.

Attorneys seek to have the red light camera program declared
unlawful. They also want Montgomery to refund all red light
violation fines and to stop issuing tickets based on the program.
[GN]

A full-text copy of the June 14, 2017 decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is available at
https://is.gd/t0Ts6L from Leagle.com.

James Doyle Fuller, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert E. Poundstone, IV, for Defendant-Appellant.

George R. Parker, for Defendant-Appellant.

William E. Shreve, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

John Thomas Richie, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph J. Minus, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

Susan Glasscock Copeland, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marc James Ayers, for Defendant-Appellant.

John Day Peake, III, for Defendant-Appellant.

Rudy Hill, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kim M. Boyle, for Defendant-Appellant.

Allen C. Miller, for Defendant-Appellant.


MOZES INC: Plaintiff Agrees to End TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama
federal magistrate judge on June 16 ended a University of Alabama
fan's proposed class action accusing Coca-Cola and a marketing
company of sending unsolicited text messages in a legal battle
spanning more than four and a half years.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott ordered the closure of Wesley
Phillips' case and dismissed with prejudice the claims against The
Coca-Cola Co., marketing agent Mozes Inc. and its successor ePrize
Inc. Phillips voluntarily dropped his claims on June 15 and the
sides agreed to cover their own attorneys' fees and costs.

Phillips accused Coca-Cola of working with Mozes to send the
messages after he texted his support for the Crimson Tide
following the appearance of a promotional prompt on a scoreboard
during a November 2011 football game between the unbeaten teams of
the University of Alabama and Louisiana State University at
Alabama's Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa.

According to the complaint, Phillips immediately received a
message which included a Coke Zero ad and asked him to provide his
date of birth so he could enter a contest and join the "Coke Zero
mobile list," the complaint says. The text was allegedly sent on
behalf of Coke by Mozes.

When Phillips never responded to the request, he received another
unsolicited message urging him to continue to vote for his
favorite team "to make sure they win," according to the complaint.
He said he responded by casting a vote for Alabama a second time,
and then received the same message in response with the Coke Zero
ad and a request to provide his date of birth.

The process repeated itself again after Phillips declined to
respond, and the plaintiff received a total of five unsolicited
text messages during the game, according to the complaint.

He obliged after the fifth and final message, and was greeted with
a text saying he had signed up for the list, the complaint said.
Phillips canceled his subscription to the mobile list after
realizing he signed himself up inadvertently, and received a new
message instructing him to go to a website operated by Mozes for
more information.

Phillips filed the proposed class action in December 2012,
accusing Coke and Mozes of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

He amended the complaint in February 2013 to add ePrize Inc.,
which had recently purchased Mozes, and noted that Mozes had
previously changed its name to Gerzhom Inc. It also added a second
claim alleging the companies violated the TCPA because Phillips'
number was listed on the national Do Not Call Registry.

Additionally, the new complaint discussed six total messages sent
to Phillips -- three urging him to vote and three asking him to
sign up for the Coke Zero mobile list.

Judge Ott in September 2014 recommended that Phillips' claims
should be dismissed as they pertain to all but the initial text
message. But U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor said those
related to the first two texts sent to Phillips should move
forward, as these two messages would have been sufficient to put
him on notice that he was communicating with Coke.

The sides sparred over a motion for summary judgment filed by Coke
and the others filed in March 2016, but the court did not issue a
decision before the sides agreed to end the case.

Counsel for Coke declined to comment on June 16.

Counsel and representatives for Phillips, Mozes and ePrize, and
representatives for Coke did not respond on June 16 to requests
for comment.

The plaintiff is represented by David Selby II, Esq. --
dshelby@baileyglasser.com -- John W. Barrett, Esq. --
jbarett@baileyglasser.com -- Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- and Ryan M. Donovan, Esq. --
rdonovan@baileyglasser.com --  of Bailey & Glasser LLP and Ronald
A. Marron, Esq. -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- and Alexis M.
Wood, Esq. -- alex@consumersadvocate.com -- of the Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron.

Coke is represented by Harlan Prater IV, Esq. --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Wesley Gilchrist, Esq. --
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com --  and Brooke G. Malcom, Esq. --
bmalcom@lightfootlaw.com -- of Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC and
L. Joseph Loveland, Esq. -- lloveland@kslaw.com -- Zachary A.
McEntyre, Esq. -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- and Sidney Stewart Haskins
II, Esq. -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- of King & Spalding LLP. Gerzhom
Inc., formerly known as Mozes Inc., is represented by
Blaine Kimrey, Esq. -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- and Bryan Clark,
Esq. -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price PC and Robert
Campbell, Esq. -- rjcampbell@bradley.com -- of Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP. EPrize Inc. is represented by James Witcher III,
Esq. -- jwitcher@handarendall.com -- of Hand Arendall LLC and
Henry Pietrkowski, Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- and
Timothy R. Carraher, Esq. --  tcarwinski@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith LLP.

The case is Phillips v. Mozes Inc. et al., case number 2:12-cv-
04033, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. [GN]


MURPHY OIL: Justice Dept. Flips Position in Supreme Court Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Manchester, writing for The Hill, reports that the Justice
Department said on June 16 it will reverse its stance on a Supreme
Court case, in which the department previously favored workers
over management.

The Justice Department under the Obama administration had thrown
its weight behind the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the
case, NLRB v. Murphy Oil, but the department is now weighing in on
the side of Murphy Oil.

The case seeks to answer whether an employee agreement that makes
employees wave their right to bring a class action lawsuit against
their employer goes against the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).

The Department of Justice (DOJ) claimed in a new amicus brief
first reported by Politico that "nothing in the NLRA's legislative
history indicates that Congress intended to bar enforcement of
arbitration agreements like those at issue here."

DOJ acknowledged that it previously supported the position of the
NLRB, which had ruled against such arbitration agreements, but
said that "after the change in administration, the office
reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion."

It is uncommon for the Justice Department to change positions in a
Supreme Court case. [GN]


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 1st 2 Claims in Concussion Deal Total $9MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Wilner, writing for The News Tribute, reports that the first
two claims in the NFL's billion-dollar concussion settlement were
announced on June 15, a total of $9 million in benefits.

The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
overseeing the process was notified on June 15 through a joint
status report filed by the class and the NFL that the claims were
approved. The names of the former players were not disclosed as
part of the filings.

The payouts were for $5 million for a qualifying diagnosis of ALS
(Lou Gehrig's Disease), and $4 million for a qualifying diagnosis
of CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy).

Those amounts mean that both individuals played a minimum of five
NFL seasons and were diagnosed before their 45th birthdays.

Because CTE can only be diagnosed once someone has died, the
player's estate would be collecting that payout, approved on June
5. THE ALS claim was approved on May 26.

The claims process for monetary awards opened on March 23. There
is also a baseline assessment program that launched on June 6.

Players who already have been diagnosed with ALS, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's or dementia are eligible for payments. The league has
estimated that 6,000 former players -- or nearly three in 10 --
could develop Alzheimer's disease or moderate dementia.

More than 14,500 class members out of a potential well above
20,000 have registered for benefits ahead of the Aug. 7 deadline.
That can include former players or their families.

"We continue to be encouraged by the response from retired players
and their families to the settlement, and are pleased that its
vital benefits -- including monetary payments -- are now
available," said Christopher Seeger, co-lead class counsel for the
retired NFL players. "We implore all class members, even those who
may feel healthy today, to register before the Aug. 7 deadline so
they can be eligible for the benefits they deserve."

In addition to those class members who have filed or still could
file, 146 had opted out of the settlement as of June 5, according
to the filings.

Also as of June 5, the claims administrator had contracted with 67
qualified physicians in or near 49 of the 53 target cities closest
to where the majority of living retired players reside. Those
physicians will be making qualifying diagnoses for class members.

The baseline assessment program administrator has contracted with
141 qualified providers, including in 42 of the 53 target cities,
to conduct such tests.

The lead plaintiff on the class-action lawsuit was former Patriots
and Eagles fullback Kevin Turner. Researchers announced last year
that Turner suffered from CTE to a degree that they had not seen
for an athlete who died in his 40s.

In the lawsuit filed in Philadelphia, the league was accused of
hiding what it knew about the link between concussions and CTE,
the degenerative brain disease that has been found in dozens of
former players after their deaths. Senior U.S. District Judge
Anita B. Brody approved the deal in 2015 after twice sending it
back to lawyers over concerns the funds might run out.

The deal was upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last
year.

The NFL admitted no fault as part of the settlement, though league
official Jeffrey Miller did acknowledge during congressional
testimony that there is a link between football and CTE. [GN]


NEAL TRUCKING: "Poisson" Class Action Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Ronald Poisson, the Plaintiff, v. Neal
Trucking, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-
DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's
motion for final approval of class action settlement, award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and took the matter under
submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rLhECpG9


NOVA SCOTIA: Hospital Employee's Snooping Could Cost $1MM
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC reports that the actions of a hospital employee who went
snooping around hundreds of patient records for more than a year
could cost Nova Scotia taxpayers CAD1 million in a proposed
settlement.

Court documents filed as part of a class action lawsuit identify
the employee at the centre of the privacy breach as Cheryl Decker,
an admissions clerk at Roseway Hospital in Shelburne.

The privacy breach came to light in April 2012 when another
employee caught Decker looking up patient records on a work
computer and reported it to management.

Privacy Violated

An audit was subsequently carried out and 707 patients within the
district health authority received a letter in the mail advising
them their personal health information had been inappropriately
viewed. Decker was authorized to look at only 12 of those patient
files.

Willa Magee, 70, is one of two patients fronting the lawsuit
against the South West District Health Authority, one of nine
district health authorities that have since merged to form the
Nova Scotia Health Authority.

Magee said she feels her privacy was violated after her hospital
records were spied on five times over a year.

"It was kind of invasive having someone look at your records even
if there wasn't anything particularly interesting in your
records," said the Shelburne woman.

"Like having a robber come into your house and go through your
most private things."

'That is when I kind of got ticked off'

She followed up with the hospital's privacy officer and was told
an employee had been fired. A printout about the breaches that was
sent to Magee offered little explanation.

Magee said the privacy officer showed a lack of concern regarding
employee agreements to protect patient confidentiality and that's
what drove her to call a lawyer.

"[The officer] basically said, 'Yes, but you can't expect
everybody to comply.' So that is when I kind of got ticked off,"
said Magee.

"It didn't seem like it was terribly important to them."

CAD1K in damages to each patient

The proposed $1-million settlement is due to be heard June 22 in
Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax. If approved, class members
would receive $1,000 each, with the balance covering legal costs
and payment to the law firm.

Ray Wagner, a partner in the Halifax law firm that's behind the
lawsuit, said he believes it's the first class action lawsuit in
Canada to deal with the breach of medical records.

Not only did the snooping go on for well over a year, Wagner said
the impact is magnified because many of the 707 affected patients
live in Shelburne, which has a population of 1,400.

Wagner said it's unknown why the clerk was looking at the
information and whether she shared or used the information.

The settlement addresses an area of negligence that's emerged in
the age of electronic information storage, he said.

'We regret this happened and apologize'

In a statement, the Nova Scotia Health Authority said it's pleased
to be close to reaching a conclusion to this incident.

"It is essential that patients are able to trust that their
personal health information is protected. We regret this happened
and apologize to those who were impacted," read the statement.

Martina Munden, general counsel for the health authority, was
unable to comment on the specifics of the Roseway Hospital breach.
However, she said consolidation of the health authorities has led
to streamlined processes in the protection of privacy. She cited
monthly auditing that acts as a deterrent, employee education and
training, and follow up which can include employee discipline.

But she acknowledged that an employee's pledge to protect
information "may not work in every case."

Wagner said the breach has forced the hospital to toss out its old
auditing system. A new system that tracks people who access
information in that hospital has been introduced.

He's now pursuing a claim against the former Capital District
Health Authority involving about 120 patients.

Not About the Money

For Magee, joining the lawsuit was never about seeking monetary
damages. Her goal was to compel the hospital to improve its
safeguarding of patient records.

She still has questions about why the clerk, whom she doesn't
know, was so curious about the medical information of so many
people.

"You wonder whether she had time to do her work looking at the
files of all those people," she said with a laugh. [GN]


NEW JERSEY: Hit With Possible Class Action Over New Bail System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courier Post Online reports that a Dallas Cowboys fan accused of
assault in a bar fight after an argument about the Philadelphia
Eagles filed a federal lawsuit targeting New Jersey's new bail
system.

Brittan Holland's lawsuit, which also includes a bail bonds
company, argues that it's unfair that the Sicklerville man has
been given home detention and required to wear an electronic
monitor, rather than straight cash bail.

Lexington National Insurance Co. is also part of the lawsuit
against the state attorney general and Camden County's prosecutor;
the suit seeks class-action status. It was brought by Washington-
based Kirkland & Ellis, and the suit is led by former George W.
Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement.

The suit says that thousands of others are being subjected to
"similar life-altering, liberty-restricting conditions without
ever receiving the option of bail" and the reform efforts are also
harming bail bonds companies.

The bail reforms were enacted Jan. 1 as a way to keep violent
offenders detained until trial while providing poor, low-level
defendants the opportunity to be freed. Aside from arguments from
bail bond companies and some defendants, lawmakers and law
enforcement officials have complained that it's led to some people
being quickly released because they weren't deemed a threat, only
to be re-arrested on new charge.

Attorney General Christopher Porrino defended the state's bail
reform effort, arguing that it's meeting the goal of protecting
the community by detaining dangerous defendants without bail and
"minimizing pretrial incarceration of low-risk, indigent
defendants."

"We will continue to work with stakeholders across the criminal
justice system to ensure the effective ongoing implementation of
the new system," Porrino said.

A spokeswoman for the prosecutor said the office had no comment.

Holland and his father were charged in April after an argument at
a bar about the Eagles led to a fight that left two men injured.
Police said that the fight in Winslow Township left one man with
head injuries and the tavern owner's son with a broken nose.

Officers then found Holland and his father covered in blood in
their home. Holland told police that it was a mutual fight and
that he was a Cowboys fan. His father was wearing Pittsburgh
Steelers slippers, police said.

The suit says that it doesn't have a problem with the overall goal
of the bail reform effort, but that the state can achieve the goal
while still offering monetary bail when appropriate.

"What New Jersey may not do is restrict the liberty of
presumptively innocent defendants without offering the one
alternative to substantial pretrial deprivations that the
Constitution expressly protects -- monetary bail," the suit says.

Holland's lawyer says in the suit that his "liberty is sharply
curtailed" because he's required to wear an electronic monitor on
his ankle and report to the pretrial services office every two
weeks. His lawyer says he can't shop for food or take his son to
baseball practice. [GN]


NRG ENERGY: "Wilens" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEFFREY WILENS, on behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NRG ENERGY, INC.,
NRG RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SOLUTIONS LLC and DOES Through 100,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01128-CJC-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), Mr. Jeffrey Wilens will move the Court on September 11,
2017 at 9:00 a.m., for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons residing in the United States whose cellular
   phone received a phone call from Defendants or their agents
   between June 17, 2011 and the date of class certification and
   which phone call used an artificial or prerecorded voice.

On June 12, 2017, the parties conducted a Rule 7.3 Conference and
met and conferred regarding the proposed motion. Defendants stated
they would oppose Class Certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b8T7RTJY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone No: (949) 240 8595
          Facsimile No: (949) 240 8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


ONEBEACON INSURANCE: Lawyer Starts Probe for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam Boyer, writing for Insurance Business Magazine, reports New
York lawyer who has drawn criticism for his practice of taking
class action suits against mergers and acquisition activity is
investigating an insurance company.

Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates, "is investigating OneBeacon Insurance Group" and the
value of its stock following the company's sale to Intact
Financial, his law firm has announced.

Monteverde, a former partner at Faruqi & Faruqi, has a reputation
for allegedly attempting to bring class actions to get companies
to settle because it's cheaper than fighting the case through the
courts.

According to Forbes, a Faruqi & Faruqi tactic to gain lawsuit
targets is to fire off "press releases after merger announcements
and other significant corporate events in search of clients who
can help it assemble class actions."  Lawyers there would
"specialize in extracting fees from corporations who find it less
expensive to pay them off than to litigate," the 2013 Forbes
article stated.

According to the Monteverde & Associates release: "The
investigation focuses on whether OneBeacon Insurance Group and its
Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by (1) failing to
conduct a fair process, (2) whether and by how much this proposed
transaction undervalues the Company by, and (3) failing to
disclose all material financial information in connection with the
upcoming shareholder meeting."

The law firm is also currently "investigating" Allied World
Assurance Company, as per its website.

Monteverde made headlines in the past for an alleged sexual
harassment claim against a subordinate while at Faruqi & Faruqi.
The case was eventually decided by a New York federal jury in
2015, finding the law firm and Monteverde partially liable for
creating a hostile work environment.

The jury found Faruqi and Monteverde liable on the hostile work
environment claims and partially granted the victim damages. She
had $2 million in damages but was awarded $140,000. The victim is
reportedly now working for Fidelity National Finance. [GN]


PANERA BREAD: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
shareholder has filed a class action lawsuit against Panera Bread
and company officials, alleging violation of the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act.

Lawrence Phillips filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, June 7 in U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware against 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, alleging they issued materially false statements to the
plaintiff regarding a proposed merger with JAB.

According to the complaint, Phillips was damaged monetarily from
being misled into agreeing to the proposed merger.  The plaintiff
alleges the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements in order to convince the plaintiff to vote in favor of
the merger with JAB.

Mr. Phillips seeks trial by jury, enjoin the defendants, court
costs, and all further relief the court grants.  He is represented
by attorneys Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- and James
M. Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
in New York, and by Michael Van Gorder, Esq. --
mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi in Wilmington,
Delaware.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware case number 1:17-
cv-00697-RGA
[GN]


PETCO ANIMAL: "Hecker" Labor Lawsuit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JAMES HECKER, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES,
INC., PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.
LLC, and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, Defendants, (originally Case
No. 1:16-cv-10857, N.D. Ill., November 23, 2016) was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, and assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01169-JAH-MDD, according
to docket entry dated June 12, 2017.

The case alleges, among others, that Plaintiff was scheduled to
work more than 40 hours in any workweek in which he was expected
to, and did, in fact, work in excess of 40 hours in such work
weeks, without being paid overtime wages.  The suit was brought
pursuant the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. operates more than 50 retail stores.
The Plaintiff is an assistant store manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346.2222
     Fax: (312) 346.0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Ave., Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-1199
     Fax: (212) 532-3801
     E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
             cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
             droth@hgrlawyers.com
             rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

        - and -

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10580
     Phone: 914.934.9200
     Fax: 914.934.9220


PINE BUILDERS: Faces "Adams" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Adams, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v Pine Builders Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03507 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2017), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid
wages from Defendant for working more than forty hours in a week
and not being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the
regular rate for each and all such hours over forty in a week.
The case also alleges violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant -- http://www.evenhar.net/-- was engaged in the
business of providing construction services and repairs. Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant as a laborer performing a variety of
functions within this capacity including masonry, cleaning, and
demolition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Class Certification Bid Continued
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jack Sena, the Plaintiff, v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04327
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order
generally continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 20, 2017.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JS7WktxX


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Great Barrington May Join Flushable Wipes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Bellow, writing for Berkshire Eagle, reports that two men
with a gas detector climb down a narrow cylinder to the wastewater
pumps, while one waits above in case something goes wrong.

They have to wear gloves and safety glasses -- even a sanitation
suit at times.  And there's a retrieval crane with a hook at the
top so the fire department can pull them up the 16-foot deep tube
in an emergency.

After about 15 minutes, they pop back up into the pumping station
on Park Street, just past the Rising Paper mill, with a small
bucket of congealed wet wipes.

Welcome to the world of the town's wastewater department workers,
who would normally check the town's four pumping stations once a
week to make sure they are pushing wastewater through the system.

But now, workers are going into this dangerous pump chamber --
known as "the can" -- three times a week because one thing that
gets flushed down the toilet is threatening the entire system.

"Every one of those [flushable] wipes weave like dreadlocks and
those dreadlocks weave together," said Wastewater Superintendent
Timothy Drumm.  "And it keeps growing."

Mr. Drumm is wearily shaking his head at those convenient things
for baby bottoms and kitchen counters.  It turns out that only 40
percent of wipes are used on babies, and that their popularity is
the scourge of sewers and private septic systems everywhere.

He points to the electrical system control panel in the pumping
station.  It shows the amps in the pumps rising, indicating wipe
trouble downstairs.

"If it's got 20 amps we know it's free [of wipes], but when it
starts climbing up, it's ragging up, so now we know we've got to
go down there," Mr. Drumm said.  "When both [pumps] are over 30
amps, it kicks the breakers out."

The wipes will flush down a toilet and even sail through pipes, he
said.  But at some point they will get hung up somewhere in the
system, or eventually meet up at the pump, where they attach and
form a "blob," Mr. Drumm added.

And it is at the end of this journey that they threaten to break a
pump -- and taxpayer wallets in this town with a population of
roughly 7,000 most of the year.

But taxpayers are already paying.  It costs the town $143,000
annually for this weekly manpower to remove what amounts to one
small bucket of congealed wipes and take them to the dump.

"It wraps around the pipes so tight, it slows the turning [of the
pump]," Mr. Drumm said.

So workers go to the stations and check the amps to see if the
pumps are struggling.  Each station helps push the wastewater
through the 31-mile system, Mr. Drumm said, eventually sending it
downtown and across the Housatonic River, until it gets to the
treatment plant on Bentley Avenue.

To get the wipes out of a pump's moving parts, workers have to
pull them through a four-inch opening.  Sometimes they'll have to
put a hook or a hacksaw blade inside to cut the wipes so they can
free the pump.

"That's the only access point," Mr. Drumm said.  "Sometimes they
wrap so much we have to cut them."

Widespread and expensive

It's the same everywhere, with a shift in scale, of course.  New
York City's acting commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Protection told ABC News in 2014 that $18 million was spent over a
five- to six-year period to hand-remove masses of wipes from the
sewer system.

In the city of Pittsfield, population 44,000, Wastewater
Superintendent Carl Shaw said the department has new equipment
that drops things like wipes onto a conveyor belt, which sends the
matter into a "screening monster that grinds it up and compresses
it."

"The biggest problem with wipes is in the [pumping] stations," he
added.  "Occasionally we'll have to pull a pump out.  If one pump
fails we have others.  But we designed our stations to chop [the
wipes]."

Shaw said wipes are an issue only "once a quarter," however, and
said because of larger siphons leading into the system that people
will sometimes throw things into, they find bigger things, like
underwear or even blankets.

In 2014 The Eagle reported that lots of things, including wipes,
were overworking Pittsfield's wastewater department.

"It's a daily issue, no doubt about it, and quite often overtime
is required because you get blockages in the system all hours of
the day," said Bruce Collingwood, who at the time was the
Commissioner of Public Utilities.

In Great Barrington, it's removing wipes that ups the workload,
but it has to be done, Mr. Drumm said.

"If we don't do this," he added, "it'll either trip the pump out
or shear the pump's coupling, or have a catastrophic failure of
the pump.  Then we're down there pulling the whole pump out."

It happens. In 2015, wet wipes and household food fat formed a
giant clot that destroyed a Chelsea, west London sewer.

"The city of London had a 10-ton blob of wipes," said Ted Nappo, a
Great Barrington town intern who researched the problem for a
presentation to the Select Board on June 19.

"It cost the city taxpayers $750,000 [in U.S. dollars]."

One new pump system in one of Great Barrington's four stations is
estimated at $700,000.  That's $2.8 million total, Mr. Nappo said,
if all the pumps need replacement.

"None of these numbers are necessary if people stop flushing the
wipes," he added.

Lawsuits, solutions

But these numbers have pulled lawyers into the fray, as
municipalities and private citizens are fighting back with class-
action lawsuits against wipe manufacturers like Proctor & Gamble,
and the internet is chock-full of tales of sewer and septic woe.

Great Barrington Town Manager Jennifer Tabakin said on June 19 the
town might look into joining such a lawsuit.

"I've been here almost 35 years, and it's gotten worse in the last
12 years," Mr. Drumm told the board.  "They've got a whole aisle
at Price Chopper with them."

Board Chairman Sean Stanton suggested a ban like the one imposed
on plastic bags in town stores. He also said state legislators
should be consulted.

"If we don't get in front of this the [state] Department of
Environmental Protection is going to mandate that we get more
staff," said town Department of Public Works Director Sean
VanDeusen, who said that will pile on insurance and other costs of
hiring people.  "That adds up to well over $100,000."

Mr. Nappo said education is key, since you can't police people in
their bathrooms.  And, he said, despite the problem, manufacturers
still advertise wipes as "flushable."

"As anyone with children knows, lots of things are flushable,"
Stanton joked.

But wipe manufacturers are held to a "flushable" standard set by
the industry trade organization INDA, the Association of the
Nonwoven Fabric Industry, and EDANA, its European counterpart.
INDA, for instance, has a set of tests to determine "flushability"
that it encourages the industry to abide by.

The INDA website has multiple pages on "Flushabilty" and the sewer
controversy, where it says paper towels are the biggest culprit of
sewer clogs.

"Some wipes are designed to be flushed," the website says, "while
others are not.  For those companies who make "flushable wipes,"
we urge them to adopt our Flushability Guidelines and test their
products in order to substantiate flushable claims."

INDA says it encourages companies to label nonflushable wipes
packages with the INDA "Do Not Flush" logo.

Mr. Drumm said something is wrong with this picture -- that his
workers don't have a regular detail on anything other than wipes.

"It's the main thing," he said, of the extra maintenance work.
"When we go to a [wastewater] conference, people ask, 'You got a
problem with the wipes?'" Mr. Drumm says everyone throws up their
hands and says "yes!"

At the pumping station, wastewater department employee Jerry Morey
brings the bucket of wipes up and takes them out to the truck for
the trip to the dump.

And Mr. Drumm, watching him, said they especially stay on top of
the wipe situation on Fridays.

"We always try to do it on Friday," he said, "'cause we don't want
to get called in on the weekends." [GN]


ROSS DRESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Latesha Billingsley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ross Dress Forless, Inc. and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. RG17864196 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to reimburse
necessary business expenditures, and failure to pay for required
work uniforms, as required by California Labor Code.

Ross Dress Forless, Inc. owns and operates retail stores
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
      7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Telephone: (510) 817-2711
      Facsimile: (510) 562-6830 7
      E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
              rwlm@asmlawyers.com
              hvr@asmlawyers.com
              caj@asmlawyers.com
              bar@asmlawyers.com


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Sued for Mishandling Blood Glucose Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
former Mariano's employee who accused the grocer of mishandling
medical testing equipment also said the company improperly stores
its employees' biometric data.

In a complaint filed June 9 in Cook County Circuit Court, Thomas
Doporcyck said Roundy's Supermakets, Inc., Roundy's Illinois, LLC,
which does business as Mariano's Fresh Market, and The Kroger
Company, fired him for complaining about a failure to comply with
federal clinical laboratory testing requirements and using
potentially contaminated meters when testing customers' glucose
levels. But he also has brought a class action complaint against
Mariano's and Kronos, Inc., regarding fingerprint readers.

According to the complaint, Kroger operates more than 2,000
supermarkets nationwide, including 41 Mariano's stores in
Illinois. Mariano's enrolls its employees in the Kronos employee
database, which monitors time on the job, including for salaried
employees, via a fingerprint scanner time clock. Doporcyck was
hired as pharmacy manager for the Gurnee Mariano's in December
2013 and was transferred to the Northbrook location in 2015. He
earned about $132,000 in annual base salary and collected a $5,000
bonus in 2015.

Doporcyck said Mariano's and Kronos fail to comply with the
state's Biometric Information Privacy Act's requirements to inform
employees in writing of the specific purpose of collecting and
storing fingerprints, provide a retention schedule and guidelines
for destroying the fingerprints and collect written releases to
collect the fingerprint data. He also said it is wrong for
Mariano's to disclose employee fingerprint data to Kronos as an
out-of-state, third-party vendor.

The class would include any Kroger employee who worked at an
Illinois store and provided a fingerprint. Doporcyck seeks
statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful BIPA violation and
$1,000 for each negligent violation.

Relative to his termination, Doporcyck seeks recovery under the
Illinois Whistleblower Act. He said he was fired in February 2016
after he told corporate officials his store did not have a valid
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment waiver, which was
required for the chain's free glucose testing events that promoted
meters it sold and the store claimed was also designed to raise
awareness for diabetes treatments and hepatitis B vaccinations. He
also noticed other Mariano's stores lacked CLIA waivers and
informed several fellow pharmacists of the situation via text
message and email.

Doporcyck said supervisors rebuked him via email and phone, then
suspended him on Feb. 4, 2016; he was fired on the phone a week
later. He maintained he "exercised his rights by disclosing
reasonably perceived illegalities at Mariano's and by refusing to
participate in activities he believed to be illegal."

Before he noticed his store lacked a CLIA waiver, Doporcyck
notified supervisors about his concerns with the failure to
disinfect glucose meters between patients because of the
possibility of spreading bloodborne pathogens. He refused to do
the tests until he was able to order disinfectant wipes to clean
meters after each use.

Doporcyck wants to be reinstated with a restoration of his
seniority status and for the court to order back pay with
interest, as well as compensation for damages along with legal and
expert witness fees. He said the retaliatory discharge entitles
him to "damages for past and future pain and suffering, damages
for emotional trauma and his incidental and consequential
damages," as well as punitive damages.

Representing Doporcyck in the matter are attorneys from Stephan
Zouras, LLP, of Chicago. [GN]


RS&H INC: Judge Denies Certification in Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jones, writing for The Florida Record, reports that the
Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida has denied a
motion for reconsideration in an age discrimination lawsuit filed
by a former employee against a Florida company.

In her ruling, Judge Susan Bucklew turned away an attempt by at
least 21 former workers of engineering firm RS&H Inc. seeking
class-action status.

On Jan. 6, Bradley Jones, acting on his own behalf and others in a
similar situation, filed suit alleging violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and The Florida Civil
Rights Act.

In his complaint, Jones stated that he was told his 2015
termination was part of a reduction in force and that he was one
of 23 employees nationwide to be terminated, including seven
employees at the Tampa location.

Jones alleges that all seven of the employees terminated at the
Tampa location were more than 50 years old. Jones was 53 years old
at the time of his termination, the suit states.

Jones further alleges RS&H hired young employees and then
terminated the older employees once the younger hires were
trained.

Jones and a group of former workers then filed suit seeking class
certification. A lower court ruled that Jones failed to satisfy
his burden of showing that all of the fired employees were in a
similar situation as Jones at the time of the dismissals. The
court did find that Jones and five of the seven workers at the
Tampa facility were similarly situated. Jones then filed a motion
before the court for reconsideration.

Bucklew sided with the lower court and agreed the nationwide
plaintiff class of 21 was too diverse because the others were in
different states with different decision makers.

"Even accepting this new evidence, the court remains convinced
that its ultimate conclusion--that conditional certification is
only warranted for a class consisting of the five Tampa employees
terminated during the June 2015 RIF that were over 40 years old--
is correct," wrote Bucklew in her ruling. "Plaintiff has not shown
that the court's alternative basis for its conclusion--that
plaintiff has not shown that there are other employees that were
employed outside of Tampa who desire to opt-in and that those
employees are similarly situated to plaintiff--is wrong."

Bucklew denied the motion for reconsideration and the matter moves
back to the lower court. [GN]


SAFEWAY INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Bernal" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lilia Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and Jane Does 1 through 100, inclusive v. Safeway Inc.,
The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC665332 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate grocery stores in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
      Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
      Craig S. Momita, Esq.
      ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 844-9696
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
      E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
              mikeal@asstlawyers.com
              alfredo@asstlawyers.com
              craig@asstlawyers.com


SKY SOLAR: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about November 18,
2014; and/or (2) on the open market between November 14, 2014
through June 12, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), should
contact the firm prior to the August 15, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at -- brian@lundinlawpc.com

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Sky Solar
made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose
that: the Company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and its
enforcement by the Board of Directors were inadequate to detect
and/or deter misconduct by its officers and directors; that Sky
Solar's founder, Weili Su, was involved in undisclosed misconduct
during his tenure; and as a result of the above, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When this information was released, shares of Sky
Solar fell in value, which harmed investors according to the
Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding the rights
of shareholders.

         Brian Lundin, Esq.
         Lundin Law PC
         Telephone: 888-713-1033
         Facsimile: 888-713-1125
         E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com
         [GN]


SKY SOLAR: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-04572, is on behalf
of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Sky Solar: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to Sky Solar's false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering completed on or about
November 18, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the
open market between November 14, 2014 and June 12, 2017, both
dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sky Solar securities you
have until August 15, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., an independent power producer, develops,
owns, and operates solar parks worldwide. The Company develops
projects and generates and sells electricity in the downstream
solar market. The Company also sells solar energy systems,
including pipeline and related engineering, construction, and
procurement services, and is involved in building and transferring
solar parks. In addition, Sky Solar provides operating and
maintenance services for solar parks; and sells solar modules.

On or about November 18, 2014, Sky Solar completed its IPO,
issuing 6,353,750 ADSs and raising net proceeds of approximately
$46.1 million.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sky Solar's Code of Business
Conduct and Ethics, and the code's enforcement by the Company's
Board of Directors, were inadequate to detect and/or deter
misconduct by Sky Solar's officers and directors; (ii)
consequently, Sky Solar's founder Weili Su ("Su") was involved in
undisclosed misconduct during his tenure at the Company; and (iii)
as a result of the foregoing, Sky Solar's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 6, 2017, shortly before the markets closed, Sky Solar
announced that Su would "no longer serve as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, or as director, officer, manager, legal
representative or in any other management position of the
Company's subsidiaries or any other consolidated entities."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $0.02, or 1.06%, to
close at $1.87 on June 7, 2017, the following trading day.

On June 13, 2017, Sky Solar revealed that the Company's Management
Committee plans to recommend that the board of directors form a
committee to investigate Su's conduct during his tenure as Sky
Solar's CEO.

Following this news, Sky's ADSs temporarily ceased trading.  When
trading resumed, on June 15, 2017, Sky's ADS price fell $0.19, or
10.35%, to close at $1.66 on June 15, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]

CONTACT:

   Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
   Pomerantz LLP
   Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


SKY SOLAR: Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, reminds
investors in Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. ("Sky Solar" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:SKYS) of the August 15, 2017 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Sky Solar American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant to the Company's initial public offering on or about
November 18, 2014 (the "IPO") and/or between November 14, 2014 and
June 12, 2017 (the "Class Period") and would like to discuss your
legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/SKYS.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn:  Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Sky Solar securities pursuant to the Company's IPO and/or
throughout the Class Period.  The case, Barilli v. Sky Solar
Holdings, Ltd. et al, No. 1:17-cv-04572 was filed on June 16,
2017.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (i) the Company's Code
of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the code's enforcement by the
Company's Board of Directors, were inadequate; (ii) consequently,
Sky Solar's founder and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Weili Su
("Su"), was involved in undisclosed misconduct during his tenure
at the Company; and (iii) as a result, Sky Solar's public
statements were materially false and misleading.

Specifically, during market hours on June 6, 2017, Sky Solar
announced that Su would "no longer serve as the Company's [CEO],
or as director, officer, manager, legal representative or in any
other management position of the Company's subsidiaries or any
other consolidated entities."  Then on June 13, 2017, Sky Solar
disclosed that the Company's Management Committee plans to
recommend that the board of directors form a committee to
investigate Su's conduct during his tenure as the Company's CEO.
As a result of these disclosures, Sky Solar's ADS price was
negatively impacted, causing harm to investors.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Sky Solar's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


SONUS NETWORKS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that on
June 6, 2017, United States District Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.
of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice a putative securities class
action against Sonus Networks, Inc., its CEO and its CFO.  Sousa
v. Sonus Networks, Inc., et al., No. 16-10657-GAO (D. Mass. June
6, 2017).

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) (and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and separately alleged that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by misleading investors regarding Sonus' revenue projection for
the first quarter of 2015.  The Court held that plaintiff had not
met the heightened pleading standard for alleging securities fraud
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
finding that plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged a material
misrepresentation or omission with respect to certain allegations
and had not sufficiently alleged scienter with respect to other
allegations.

Sonus provides hardware and software-based tools to help
businesses secure their internet and communication
infrastructures.  The Amended Complaint alleges that Sonus and two
of its officers made materially false and misleading statements
concerning the company's first quarter 2015 revenue projection at
two points during the putative class period:  first, on an October
23, 2014 earnings call; and second, in connection with a February
18, 2015 press release and earnings call.  On March 24, 2015,
approximately five weeks after the February call, Sonus announced
that its first quarter revenue was only approximately $50 million
compared to its previous projection of approximately $74 million.
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this announcement, Sonus'
shares dropped from $13.16 per share to $8.70 per share.

The Court initially rejected plaintiff's contention that the
October 23, 2014 statement that management was "comfortable with"
outside analysts' Q1 2015 revenue forecast was misleading, holding
that this statement was "merely non-actionable corporate puffery."
The Court further rejected plaintiff's argument that the statement
was actionable in light of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist.
Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318, 1328-29
(2015), finding that plaintiff had not adequately alleged that
defendants were not in fact comfortable with the external
estimate.  Notably, the Court noted that while Omnicare involved a
claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, it
"assume[d] that it applies to" the Exchange Act claims in this
case.  The Court pointed to the Amended Complaint's recognition
that contingencies--such as whether or when a sale to a prominent
customer might be finalized--existed to undermine plaintiff's
contention that defendants "must-have-known" that the October 2014
statement was false when made.  The Court also noted that the
Amended Complaint failed to include specifics as to how defendants
became comfortable with the analysts' projection, and "without
more detail" as to the numbers underlying the forecast, "a fact
finder could not draw a strong inference" that the October 2014
statement was disingenuous.  In support of this conclusion, the
Court highlighted that the projections referred to in the
statement at issue were not internal projections, but rather were
consensus estimates of outside analysts, "presumably formulated on
publicly available data."  Moreover, the Court stressed that
plaintiff's reliance on former employees statements to support its
allegations are not enough to meet the PSLRA's heightened pleading
standard.

The Court similarly rejected plaintiff's argument that the
February 2015 announcement that the company expected Q1 2015
revenue would be approximately $74 million was misleading, finding
that the Amended Complaint "is vague as to when the defendants
became aware of facts that should have made them aware of the
falseness of their optimistic statements, a circumstance found to
weigh against a finding of a strong inference of scienter" under
the PSLRA.  In particular, the Court found that a "vague assertion
that defendants must have known something" because of the level of
seniority "does not suffice to adequately allege a strong
inference of scienter."  The Court also pointed out that while
proof of motive is not required to make out a claim under Section
10(b), the plaintiff had not alleged "any of the telltale motives
that have been found to strengthen an inference of scienter, such
as insider stock sales or financial incentives far beyond the
usual compensation packages."  Acknowledging that it would clearly
have been better for the company to announce a modified
projection, the Court nevertheless concluded that "under the
admonition against finding fraud by hindsight, "general
allegations 'that defendant knew earlier what later turned out
badly' are not sufficient to plead scienter."  For all of these
reasons, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the
defendants without needing to address defendants' additional
arguments for dismissal: failure to plead loss causation and
protection under the PSLRA's safe harbor.

Finding no liability under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the
Court dismissed the control liability claims against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a). The Court also denied
plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, noting that
plaintiff already had amended the initial complaint after the
current lead plaintiff had been appointed, and had eleven months
between the filing of the initial complaint and the operative
Amended Complaint to investigate the claims alleged.  In this
regard, the Court further noted that defendants' motion to dismiss
had put plaintiff on notice of the deficiencies in the Amended
Complaint and there was no suggestion that new information had
been discovered such that amendment would not be futile.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the claims with prejudice and the
action in its entirety.  This decision reinforces the high
pleading standard that plaintiffs must meet to plead scienter in
securities fraud actions. [GN]

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated June 6, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/q3YsWz from Leagle.com.

Richard Sousa, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Sonus Networks, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Batter,
III, Wilmer Hale LLP, James T. Lux, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP & Robert K. Smith, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP.

Raymond P. Dolan, Defendant, represented by John F. Batter, III,
Wilmer Hale LLP, James T. Lux, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP & Robert K. Smith, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
LLP.

MARK T. GREENQUIST, Defendant, represented by John F. Batter, III,
Wilmer Hale LLP, James T. Lux, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP & Robert K. Smith, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
LLP.

Richard Sousa, Movant, represented by Gonen Haklay, Rosen Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Jacob A. Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Laurence M. Rosen, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, Jason M. Leviton,
Block & Leviton LLP & Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP.


SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA: Judge Denies Class Certification in "Hardoby"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MAXWELL TYLER HARDOBY, the Plaintiff, v.
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, the Defendant, Case
No. 7:16-cv-00103-PMS (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Meade
Sargent entered an order denying pro se plaintiff's Motion
requesting class certification and motion for appointment of
counsel.

The Court said, "Insofar as the plaintiff seeks certification of
this matter as a class action, it is inappropriate to certify a
class where a pro se litigant seeks to represent the class.
See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).
Insofar as the plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, prisoners
have no statutory right to counsel in civil rights cases; in fact,
there is a presumption against appointment of counsel
in such cases except in exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless,
because the plaintiff in this case is proceeding in forma
pauperis, the court may, in its discretion, request that
an attorney represent the plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. par. 1915(e)(1)
(2006). The factors to be considered by the court in deciding
whether to request an attorney to represent an indigent party
include the merits of the indigent's claim and the capability of
the indigent litigant to present the case. See Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147, 1153 (4th Cir. 1977)".

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


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Gas Royalty Case Nearing Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that the defense
rested on June 15 on the ninth day of a jury trial of a class
action claim over alleged insufficient payments on gas production
in the Fayetteville shale by Southwestern Energy and related
parties. The case went to the jury about 2 p.m. on June 16.

Among matters pending is a motion by the defense for Judge Brian
Miller to dismiss the case, which turns on expense deductions from
payments to royalty owners.

This is one of several class actions over gas payments and drew
our attention because of suggestions that a separate state court
class action case produced a proposed settlement more advantage to
lawyers and the gas company than to landowners. That $45 million
settlement, still awaiting a final court hearing in Conway County,
was said to be imperiled should the federal case go to trial.
Efforts to stop it failed. The cases have similar, but not
identical, classes of plaintiffs, as many as 13,000 in the state
case.

The settlement in Conway County was pulled from consideration the
day this case went to trial.

Still pending in this case, too, is a request by the plaintiffs'
attorneys for the judge to impose sanctions against defense
lawyers for colluding in settlement disadvantageous to damaged
property owners. [GN]


STEPTOE & JOHNSON: "Houck" Class Action Alleges Gender Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a former associate filed a national class action in Los
Angeles against Steptoe & Johnson, claiming the giant law firm
pays only lip service to gender equality, but has a male-dominated
leadership that discriminates against women in pay and promotions.

"Despite paying lip service to diversity in its workforce, and
even counseling the firm's own clients on policies to avoid pay
discrimination, defendant Steptoe & Johnson LLP . . . subjects its
female attorneys to unequal pay," Ji-In Houck says in her federal
lawsuit.

Houck, of Los Angeles, says her starting pay at the firm as a
contract attorney, $85,000 a year, was barely half the $165,000
that male lawyers fresh out of law school were being paid --though
she had come to Steptoe with two years of experience in civil
litigation.

During her three years in Steptoe's Century City office, her
salary typically was 30 percent to 40 percent less than male
lawyers with comparable experience, she says in her June 22
complaint.

When she left in March 2016, she was earning $200,000, a year
compared to the $230,000 paid to men at her level. "The firm's
overall corporate culture and the uniform policies, procedures and
practices inevitably result in systemic pay discrimination to the
disadvantage of the firm's female attorneys," Houck says.

The lawsuit notes that defendant Steptoe & Johnson LLP is a
distinct firm from Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, based in West Virginia,
which split off in 1980.

Steptoe said in a statement that it is "a strong supporter of
women lawyers and professionals."

Dismissing Houck as "a former junior associate who was hired as a
contract attorney and stayed with the firm for less than three
years," the law firm called her allegations "completely without
merit," and said it would "vigorously defend ourselves against
such baseless claims."

Steptoe based in Washington, D.C., has nine offices, six around
the United States, plus offices in London, Beijing and Brussels.
It has nearly 400 attorneys.

Houck's class action is one of several lawsuits by female
attorneys challenging major law firms over pay inequity in the
past 18 months or so. The case that has attracted the most
attention is the $100 million suit in New York against Chadbourne
& Parke, filed in August by former lateral partner Kerrie Campbell
of Maryland.

A shareholder of Virginia-based LeClairRyan sued the 350-lawyer
firm in January 2016 alleging pay inequity and delayed promotions.
And Sedgwick partner from Chicago sued that San Francisco-based
firm over its "male-dominated culture" in July last year. Both
cases were sent to arbitration.

In June 2016, Farmer's Insurance Group agreed to pay a class of
about 300 female in-house attorneys $4 million, plus $1.8 million
in attorneys' fees, for pay discrimination.

Houck's attorney, Lori E. Andrus of Adrus Anderson in San
Francisco, also represented the Farmers' plaintiffs. She was not
available for comment on June 26.

Stanford Law School Professor Deborah Rhode, who heads the
school's Center on the Legal Profession, said the raft of cases
shows "the increased willingness of women who've been underpaid
for decades to sue."  She said it is no longer the case that women
who sue over pay will be banned from practice. The plaintiff in
the Sedgwick case is still at that firm. Houck is now an attorney
with the Stalwart Law Group in Los Angeles.

Rhode also said the fact that Houck started at Steptoe as a
contract attorney should not lessen her claims. "I can't see that
it would be a sufficient justification" for the pay disparity,
Rhode said.

The complaint describes Steptoe "as a 'white shoe' firm of the
highest caliber."

Founded in 1916, Steptoe has "always been almost exclusively run
by men," and today retains "a highly concentrated and male-
dominated management regime," Houck says.

"The firm's overall corporate culture and the uniform policies,
procedures and practices inevitably result in systemic pay
discrimination to the disadvantage of the firm's female
attorneys."

Houck describes two other, unnamed female attorneys who earned
much less than men with comparable experience. One was paid
$160,000 a year, while her male counterparts were paid $250,000 to
$280,000, according to the lawsuit.

She says Steptoe's "devaluation" of women lawyers goes beyond
salary, that it does not promote or invest in its women equally
with its men. For instance, while about 48 percent of associates
are women, only 19 percent of partners are.

"The sharp contrast between the number of women associates and
women partners exposes Steptoe's utter failure to retain women
attorneys over the long term," Houck says.

She says the split is worse at the management level. The firm's
chairman and vice chairman are both men, as are its seven managing
partners.

"The 13-person Compensation Committee is majority male, and the
Associates Committee has historically been heavily male-dominated
as well," according to the complaint.

The firm responded to those claims in its statement on June 26,
saying that women are on its executive and nominating committees
and that two of four department heads, the general counsel, the
co-chair of the compensation committee and the past chair of the
associates committee all are women.

"In January 2016, the firm promoted a new partner class that was
50 percent female, and in January 2017, the new partner class was
80 percent female," it added.

But Houck says her experience shows "a true lack of investment in
the firm's women lawyers."  She seeks class certification, back
pay, raises and damages under the federal Equal Pay Act and the
California Fair Pay Act, and asks the court to order Steptoe to
launch programs to provide and foster equal opportunity for women
lawyers and to establish a special task force in the law firm on
carry out those programs.


STUPAR & SCHUSTER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ADEL AL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STUPAR, SCHUSTER &
BARTELL, S.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00854-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n0aalPFP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA: To Appeal $218MM Jury Verdict in GMO Corn Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Swiss agribusiness giant
Syngenta says it will appeal a Kansas federal jury's awarding of
nearly $218 million to Kansas farmers who sued the company over
its introduction of a genetically modified corn seed variety.

Syngenta says in a statement that it is "disappointed" by the June
23 verdict after a three-week trial in Kansas City, Kansas. That
case involves four Kansas farmers representing more than 7,000
growers in the state.  Another trial involving about 60,000 cases
starts next month in Minnesota.

The lawsuits allege Syngenta introduced the seed variety to the
U.S. market before China approved it for imports, wrecking an
increasingly important export market for U.S. corn and causing
price drops.

The Kansas trial was the first test case.  It and the Minnesota
trial will provide guidance for how the complex web of litigation
in state and federal courts could be resolved

A federal jury in Kansas has awarded nearly $218 million to
farmers who sued Swiss agribusiness giant Syngenta over its
introduction of a genetically engineered corn seed variety.

The June 23 verdict after a three-week trial in Kansas City,
Kansas, involves four Kansas farmers representing more than 7,000
farmers in the state.  Another trial involving about 60,000 cases
starts next month in Minnesota.

The lawsuits allege Syngenta introduced the seed variety to the
U.S. market before China approved it for imports, wrecking an
increasingly important export market for U.S. corn and causing
price drops.

The Kansas trial was the first test case.  It and the Minnesota
trial will provide guidance for how the complex web of litigation
in state and federal courts could be resolved.


TAKATA CORP: Airbag Recall Costs, Lawsuits Prompt Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, Marcy Gordon and Mari Yamaguchi at The Associated
Press report that shattered by recall costs and lawsuits, Japanese
air bag maker Takata Corp. filed on June 26 for bankruptcy
protection in Tokyo and the U.S., saying it was the only way it
could keep on supplying replacements for faulty air bag inflators
linked to the deaths of at least 16 people.

The company's bankruptcy filings cleared the way for a $1.6
billion takeover of most of Takata's assets by rival Key Safety
Systems, which is based in Detroit but owned by a Chinese company.

Takata's inflators can explode with too much force when they fill
up an air bag, spewing out shrapnel.  Apart from the fatalities,
they're responsible for at least 180 injuries worldwide.

So far 100 million inflators have been recalled worldwide, the
largest automotive-related recall in U.S. history.  That includes
69 million in the U.S., affecting 42 million vehicles.

Takata's president Shigehisa Takada told reporters in Tokyo that
with the company rapidly losing value, filing for bankruptcy
protection was the only way it could carry on.

"We're in a very difficult situation, and we had to find ways to
keep supplying our products," Mr. Takada said.  "As a maker of
safety parts for the automobile industry, our failure to maintain
a stable supply would have a major impact across the industry."

"There was no other way," he said.

Mr. Takada said he intends to leave Takata's management once it is
handed over to Key Safety Systems and things are running smoothly.

"It would be a big nuisance for the new company if a person like
me were to get involved in its management," he said.

The bankruptcy filings by Takata, founded in 1933 as a textiles
maker, led the Tokyo Stock Exchange to announce on June 26 it was
delisting the company.

Under its agreement with Key, remnants of Takata's operations will
continue to make inflators to be used as replacement parts in the
recalls, which are being handled by 19 affected automakers.

Takata will use part of the sale proceeds to reimburse the
automakers, but experts say the companies still must fund a
significant portion of the recalls themselves.

The process could take years.  One of Takata's lawyers,
Nobuaki Kobayashi, said it was too early to estimate the total
eventual cost of the recalls and would not confirm Japanese media
reports that they exceeded 1 trillion yen ($9 billion).

"It's likely every automaker involved in this recall will have to
subsidize the process because the value of Takata's assets isn't
enough to cover the costs of this recall," said Karl Brauer,
executive publisher of Kelley Blue Book and Autotrader.

Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said on June 26 it
was setting up "advice windows" to help any affected small and
medium-sized suppliers that might face difficulties due to
Takata's troubles.

More than 70 percent of the airbags recalled in Japan have been
replaced, and 36 percent in the U.S., said Hiroshi Shimizu, a
Takata vice president.  He said progress of the recalls in other
countries was unknown.

Takata and the automakers were slow to address the problem with
the inflators despite reports of deaths and injuries.  Eventually
they were forced to recall tens of millions of vehicles.  The
scope of the recalls means some car owners face lengthy waits for
replacement parts, meanwhile driving cars with air bags that could
malfunction in a crash.

The problems stem from use of the explosive chemical ammonium
nitrate in the inflators used 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.

At least $1 billion from the sale to Key is expected to be used to
satisfy Takata's settlement of criminal charges in the U.S. for
concealing problems with the inflators.  Of that amount, $850
million goes to automakers to help cover their costs from the
recalls.  Takata already has paid $125 million into a fund for
victims and a $25 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department.

Attorneys for those injured by the inflators worry that $125
million won't be enough to fairly compensate victims, many of whom
have serious facial injuries from metal shrapnel.  One
26-year-old plaintiff will never be able to smile due to nerve
damage, his attorney says.

The lead attorney for people suing the automakers said in a
statement following the announcement that he doesn't expect the
bankruptcy to affect the pending claims against the companies.
Settlement agreements with Toyota, Subaru, BMW and Mazda already
have won preliminary court approvals, said the attorney,
Peter Prieto.

That settlement will speed the removal of faulty inflators from
15.8 million vehicles and compensate consumers for economic
losses, Mr. Prieto said.  Claims are continuing against Honda,
Ford, Nissan and Takata.

Key makes inflators, seat belts and crash sensors for the auto
industry and is owned by China's Ningbo Joyson Electronic Corp.
Its global headquarters and U.S. technical center is in Sterling
Heights, Michigan.

Key said it won't cut any Takata jobs or close any of Takata's
facilities.

The Takata corporate name may not live on after the bankruptcy.
The company says on its website that its products have kept people
safe, and it apologizes for problems caused by the faulty
inflators.  "We hope the day will come when the word 'Takata'
becomes synonymous with 'safety,'" the website says.


TAX EASE: Brown, et al. Seek Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES BROWN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
TAX EASE LIEN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00208-CRS-
DW (W.D. Ken.), James Brown, Denise Puckett, Third Century
Developing Corporation, Phillip Leigh, and Laura Branson move the
Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who paid money to the defendants in connection
   with a certificate of delinquency which included 1) charges
   for prelitigation attorney's fees based upon letters bearing
   the signature of Billy W. Sherrow and/or 2) title search fees
   including charges from BGA".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XtTDi4fh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Dwyer, Jr., Esq.
          Karen C. Jaracz, Esq.
          ZIELKE LAW FIRM PLLC
          462 South Fourth Street, Suite 1250
          Louisville KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589 4600
          Facsimile: (502) 584 0422
          E-mail: kjaracz@zielkefirm.com
                  jdwyer@zielkefirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph L. Hamilton, Esq.
          Marjorie A. Farris, Esq.
          Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 West Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          E-mail: cmctighe@stites.com
                  mfarris@stites.com
                  jhamilton@stites.com

               - and -

          Gregory Napier, Esq.
          TROUTMAN & NAPIER, PLLC
          4740 Firebrook Blvd.
          Lexington, KY 40513-1403
          E-mail: gnapier@troutmannapier.com

               - and -

          William B. Baustien, Esq.
          Richard Eric Craig, Esq.
          WEBER & ROSE, P.S.C.
          471 W. Main St., Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          E-mail: bbaustien@weberrose.com
                  ecraig@webrose.com


TEAM BLAZE: Faces "Espinoza" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Espinoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TEAM BLAZE, a California
corporation; GHOLAMREZA MEDALI, an individual; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 664-645 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, June 9, 2017), alleges Defendants' failure
to provide required meal periods, required rest periods, pay
overtime wages, minimum wages, all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
maintain required records, to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and unlawful
business practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
     Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310)531-1900
     Fax: (310)531-1901


TECHNICAL TEMPERATURE: "Glickman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Glickman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Technical Temperature Services, Inc., Raymond Gaudio
and James Wolfe, Case No. 605713/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 15,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Technical Temperature Services, Inc. is offers heating and air
conditioning contractor services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
      THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
      Melville, NY 11563
      Telephone: (212) 991-8960
      Facsimile: (212) 991-8952
      E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com

TELE PAY: Faces Class Action Over Exploitative Pay Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed on June 28 by Anne Cannon, on behalf
of 1,000 phone sex workers alleging an exploitative pay scheme by
a national U.S. firm.

The Facts

Ms. Cannon, a phone sex worker and now the national voice for all
Tele Pay USA Corporation (a national telephone sex talk purveyor)
talkers in this class action filing, alleges:

    * Tele Pay charges its customers $5 per minute - $300 per
hour;
    * Tele Pay pays its phone "actors" $.07 per minute - $4.20 per
hour; (below minimum wage)
    * Tele Pay tells workers they can earn more by hitting certain
thresholds (longer call averages);
    * But Tele Pay manipulates the call distribution to make
earning more nearly impossible (scheme transfers hang ups, crank
calls, silent and unlikely calls to highest potential earners) --
relegating the workers to penury;
    * Tele Pay makes it impossible to track minutes/earnings and
their accuracy.

Defendant Tele Pay is strict with their home-based employees
(under the guise of an "entertainment services" company booking
"actors") as outlined in the complaint:

    * Calls must be answered on the 1st ring under penalty of
dismissal;
    * Tele Pay micro manages every aspect of calls;
    * Mandatory attendance at company training weekly conference
calls;
    * Other draconian rules and requirements.

Ms. Cannon has filed a class action suit on behalf of all Tele Pay
phone talkers seeking:

    * Damages for minimum wage law violations
    * Unpaid wages for required overtime
    * Other FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) violations

Ms. Cannon retains high profile lawyer/author Brian Mahany.

Mr. Mahany, a noted whistleblower lawyer (U.S. record case) and
bestselling author of Saints, Sinners and Heroes: Covert Ops in
the Wars against the C-Suite Mafia, is representing Ms. Cannon and
the class.  He is known for his $16.65 billion win against Bank of
America and other high visibility courtroom victories.  A frequent
expert legal commentator for national media, attorney Mahany is
set as a keynote on these topics at the national Mensa convention
next week.

Ms. Cannon and Mr. Mahany are demanding a jury trial.

Geography of the Case/Story

    * Anne Cannon lives and works in Orlando, FL.
    * Tele Pay is based in California and has operators across the
United States.
    * Author/Attorney Brian Mahany is Wisconsin-based with cases
in 37 states.
    * Suit filed U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles Division


TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Heat-Related Prison Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that
Larry McCollum arrived at the Hutchins prison unit near Dallas to
a grim greeting.  "Welcome to hell," the guards told him.

A cab driver with the look and physique of Santa Claus,
Mr. McCollum was to finish an 11-month stint there for cashing a
hot check.  Instead, after six sweltering days on the cell block,
the 58-year-old died of heatstroke.

Mr. McCollum shared his experiences in a letter that he wrote
before his death.

"I can't imagine what my dad was going through," said his
daughter, Stephanie Kingrey.  "How scared he probably was, not
knowing what was going to happen."

Mr. McCollum is among 22 people who have died as a result of
indoor weather conditions at 15 state prisons since 1998,
according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The
majority of Texas prisons do not have air conditioning in living
areas.

The lawyers handling Mr. McCollum's wrongful-death lawsuit against
the TDCJ also are tackling the rights of current and future
inmates in a separate lawsuit that will be heard in Houston this
week.

The case centers on six inmates at the Wallace Pack Unit in
Navasota, about 75 miles northwest of downtown Houston.  The
plaintiffs argue that the cooling mechanisms the prison provides -
- fans, showers and cool drinking water -- won't protect inmates
from the dangers of extreme heat.  Being locked inside with
humidity and temperatures topping 100 degrees, they argue, amounts
to cruel and unusual punishment.

The lawsuit filed by prisoners at the Pack Unit will not directly
impact inmates at other state prisons.  Judge's order hits state
hard over heat-related inmate deaths U.S. District Judge Keith
Ellison of the Southern District of Texas Judge orders state to
release details on inmate heat deaths U.S. District Judge Keith
Ellison of the Southern District of Texas Judge: State must
provide water without arsenic to inmates.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison has granted class-action status
to the case, and the lawyers are requesting immediate relief for
all Wallace Pack inmates --- healthy and sick, young and old.

State criminal justice officials argue it's too expensive to
provide air conditioning throughout housing units.  They say the
warden and top administrators understand the danger of rising
indoor temperatures during heat waves and take steps to mitigate
it.

"We are prepared to vigorously defend our position in court," said
Jason Clark, a spokesman for TDCJ.  "The well-being of staff and
offenders is a top priority for the agency, and we remain
committed to making sure that both are safe during the extreme
heat."

Prison officials uniformly take a variety of precautions to help
reduce heat-related illnesses, Mr. Clark said.  Water and ice are
provided to staff and inmates; activity is restricted during the
hottest hours of the day; and staff is trained to identify
symptoms of heat-related illnesses and refer people for treatment.

The following inmates are part of a lawsuit challenging the lack
of cooling at a prison unit northwest of Houston:

Keith Cole, 63, has diabetes and hypertension and takes medicine
that inhibits his ability to regulate his body temperature.  He
had been treated for heat exhaustion and has spent time in the
air-conditioned infirmary.

Jackie Brannum, 63, has diabetes and hypertension and takes
medication for depression, Schizoaffective disorder and back pain
that effect his body's abilities to thermoregulate.  He has been
treated at the infirmary for dehydration, dizziness and extreme
headaches brought on by the indoor heat.

Richard King, 70, has diabetes, hypertension and obesity.  He has
lost his coordination and skipped meals due to the heat.  His
conditions impair his ability to thermoregulate.

Fred Wallace, 74, has hypertension, obesity and depression.  His
medications for depression and hypertension inhibit his ability to
thermoregulate.  He had been to the infirmary for dizziness and
dehydration from the heat.

Marvin Yates, 72, is a cancer survivor who has hypertension,
chronic obstructive plumonary disease, coronary artery disease,
asthma, diabetes and arthritis.  He takes beta blockers and has a
stent in his heart.  His disabilities and medicaitons impair his
ability to thermoregulate.  He has experienced dizziness, muscle
cramps, fatigue, blurred vision and headaches due to heat.

Michael Denton, 39, does not have disabilities or take
medications.

The inmates, represented by Austin-based Edwards Law, contend such
efforts are inadequate.  They note in court documents that TDCJ
requires cool air and ventilation for its hog barns with mist-
generators that automatically turn on when the temperature rises
above 74 degrees.  And yet, "TDCJ has no similar policies to
protect humans."

The debate boils down to a civil rights matter, said Carter White,
director of the civil rights clinic at the University of
California Davis School of Law, who has experience with class-
action suits involving inmates.

"When people get sentenced to time in prison, it's not a death
sentence," Mr. White said.  "They're supposed to be housed in
humane conditions that don't cause these heat-related illnesses."

Cooling off

Only 28 of the state's 107 state prison facilities provide air
conditioning in housing areas, according to TDCJ.  Medical,
psychiatric and geriatric facilities are air-conditioned in all
areas.

Many state facilities were built before air conditioning, and most
built afterward do not have it because of costs for construction,
maintenance and utilities, said Mr. Clark, the TDCJ spokesman.

The Pack Unit, a minimum-security facility built in 1983, houses
more than 500 inmates with medical needs.

In May, it was near capacity with 1,478 men.  Half the prisoners
have been over age 50, and 200 or so are over 65.  About 200
inmates are young and healthy, shouldering the bulk of the labor,
according to lawyers with Edwards Law.

Some portions of Pack have air conditioning -- including solitary
cells and the infirmary -- but not the prisoner's dormitories.
Officials have designated some indoor areas where inmates can go
for respite, but inmates can't spend all their time in these
areas.

During extreme heat, officials say, the prison restricts outdoor
activity, provides water breaks for workers and offers cold
showers and extra drinking water and ice when available.  It
provides blowers and fans and attempts to ventilate the units.
Guards encourage inmates to wear shorts.

But every summer some Pack inmates require treatment for heat-
related illnesses, documents indicate. The windows in the dorms
are sealed shut, and inmates often sleep on the concrete floor
because it is cooler than on their bunks.

Each of the Pack inmates in the lawsuit has suffered setbacks as a
result of indoor heat -- five have medical complications and take
medications that put them at heightened risk for heat exposure;
the sixth is healthy.

The inmates are asking the court to require an explicit heat wave
policy at Pack Unit with remedies for inmates at different risk
levels.  They also want the judge to force the prison to lower the
indoor temperatures during heat waves and mandate on-demand
showers, portable coolers, open windows with bug screens and
three-hour periods of respite in air-conditioned parts of the
facility.

Among other details, they want the prison to monitor inmates'
water consumption, provide wellness checks and announce the
temperature hourly during heat waves.

Judge Ellison's ruling could set a precedent that would enable
inmates at other facilities to challenge policies and practices,
said Jennifer E. Laurin, a professor of criminal and civil rights
law at University of Texas.

"If the judge orders changes to the prison," she said, "prisoners
at other facilities could seek the same reforms."

Short but deadly stint

Mr. McCollum, a grandfather who drove a Yellow cab, was living
with his wife in Waco when he was arrested.  Someone had
approached him outside a bank and asked him to cash a check with
proceeds from a stolen car, his daughter said.  Mr. McCollum, who
had previous convictions for DWI and theft, was sentenced to 11
months in prison

When it came time to transfer him from the county jail to Hutchins
Unit to serve his sentence, Mr. McCollum was scared, his family
said.  He had heard terrible things about the place.

After Mr. McCollum died, his wife Sandra received a letter he had
written the day he arrived at Hutchins.  When the prisoners
arrived at the facility, the letter says, the guards taunted him
with the grim greeting.

Mr. McCollum, who was diabetic with arthritis and high blood
pressure, was given a top bunk.  Per prison system policy, he
wasn't issued a water cup, forcing him to use his hands to scoop
water when he was thirsty, his family claims in court filings. But
he rarely did that, the family believes, because he had trouble
getting down from his bunk.

Breaking down heat deaths in Texas prisons

Twenty-two people have died in Texas prisons from hyperthermia, or
elevated body temperature, from heat exposure since 1998. Source:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

On July 22, 2011, fellow inmates found him having convulsions on
the top bunk.  He was taken to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where
his body temperature was found to be over 109 degrees. His family
kept vigil for six days before cutting off life support.

Ten inmates died from heat exposure over a three-week period that
summer at prisons in Palestine, Rusk, Huntsville and Kenedy,
according to TDCJ records.

Ms. Kingrey and her family were the first relatives of a heat-
illness victim to bring suit against TDCJ.  Her aim, she said, is
"to prevent other families from going through the hell we're going
through."

"It's not humane," Ms. Kingrey said.  "It makes me sick to my
stomach knowing that other men and women living in Texas and all
the other southern states get so hot and they have no relief
whatsoever." [GN]


TRUE FITNESS: Faces Class Action in Malaysia Over Abrupt Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhamah Ghazali, writing for The Star, reports that former
customers of True Fitness & True Spa, whose memberships are now in
limbo following the gym's abrupt closure, can still commence their
legal action in Malaysia although the company is based in
Singapore.

Alex Netto, Esq. -- alex@dnfn.com -- of Dee, Netto, Fatimah & Ng,
a lawyer and True Fitness member representing the affected
customers, said this is because the case involves contracts that
were entered into in Malaysia.

"We didn't go to Singapore and sign these contracts. So, we will
commence action in Malaysia and work with the police on this," he
told reporters here on June 17.

Earlier, Netto and a team of lawyers from the DNFN legal firm,
briefed about 250 members on possible legal avenues at Jaya 33
here, where one of True Fitness outlets previously operated.

The members were divided into four groups: fixed term/pre-paid
memberships, VIP Black Card, Founder (lifetime) memberships and
newly signed-up members since May 7, 2017.

This will help lawyers establish their proof of membership before
they prepare potentially what will be a class-action suit.

Netto said the number of people that turned up to the meeting
showed that they were "clearly frustrated" and wanted swift
action.

"There must be some level of corporate responsibility here. You
can't just do business today and pack up and leave the next day.

"This situation could have been easily avoided if proper notice
was given to the members," he said.

Netto said while former members may take their case to the
Malaysian Consumer Claims Tribunal (MCCT), the law stipulates that
they will not be entitled to legal representation there.

He said this in response to Domestic Trade Cooperative and
Consumerism (KPDNKK) Minister Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin, who said
that the members could claim up to RM25,000 through the tribunal.

The fitness chain released a statement announcing that it was
shutting down its operations in Malaysia effective June 10.

It said it was ceasing all gym and spa facility operations in
Malaysia as it was "no longer financially viable" due to evolving
market conditions.

The abrupt closure left 100 True Fitness Malaysia staff jobless
and thousands of members more left in the lurch.

Former employees are also accusing True Fitness Malaysia of not
paying over RM66,000 in salaries and commissions, although the
company said they would settle this by June 19. [GN]


TT OF PINE RIDGE: Court Preliminarily Certifies Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TOM MAHONEY, the Plaintiff, v. TT OF PINE
RIDGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80029-DMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald Middlebrooks entered an order:

   1. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying a Settlement Class:

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

   3. preliminarily appointing Mahoney as the representative of
      the Settlement, and preliminarily appointing Plaintiff's
      attorneys Chris R. Miltenberger, of The Law Office of
      Chzis R. Miltenberger, PLLC, and Brandon J. Hill, of
      Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as Class Counsel; and

   4. approving the appointment of Epiq Systems to serve as the
      Settlement Administrator to administer the settlement,
      including by providing Class Notice, maintaining the
      Settlement Website, assisting Settlement Class Members in
      completing and submitting Claim Forms, receiving such Claim
      Forms, and issuing cash awards or voucher awards to
      Approved Claimants.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pIbwVM3c


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Six Looming Legal Threats
--------------------------------------------------
Anita Balakrishnan, writing for CNBC.com, reports that Uber board
members and executives say the company is starting fresh --
building Uber 2.0.

But while the closure of internal workplace culture probes could
mark a new beginning for some employees, Uber is still haunted by
plenty of its old ways, especially on the legal front.  With
several lawsuits playing out in courts across the country, lawyers
told CNBC the company still has plenty of work ahead of it.

Here are six of the biggest legal threats ahead for the company,
according to lawyers.

1. Emboldened claimants of discrimination, sexual harassment, and
retaliation

Perhaps most salient is the recent release of Uber's workplace
culture investigations, one of which resulted in the dismissal of
at least 20 employees.  Another probe resulted in a 13-page list
of recommendations for overhauling the company.

The company investigated 215 claims: 54 of discrimination, 47 of
sexual harassment, 45 of unprofessional behavior, 33 of bullying,
19 of other harassment, 13 of retaliation, 3 of physical security
and 1 wrongful termination claim.

While Uber has taken steps to make sure these incidents don't
repeat themselves, sexual harassment does not work like
bankruptcy, said Phil Bezanson -- philip.bezanson@bracewell.com
-- white collar partner at Bracewell.

"Just because they are doing their best going forward, doesn't
erase liability for things they have done in the past,"
Mr. Bezanson said.  He said potential litigants may feel
emboldened to file a lawsuit after seeing the results of the
investigation.

"I do a lot of harassment training for companies," said
Kate Bischoff of tHRive Law & Consulting.  "Sometimes after that
training, the HR department gets complaints, people saying, 'I
didn't want to stick my neck out, but now I know that it's a big
deal.' I don't know if litigation comes out of that . . . . We
might see more come out of Uber."

Ms. Bischoff said a lot depends on meeting various statutes of
limitation, both at the state level and at the federal level under
Title VII and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Other factors are whether the company took "timely and appropriate
action" on the claims, and whether the interactions were between
co-workers or with managers.  There's also the option for
"commissioners charge," a different way of handling such cases.

It gets even more complicated when one considers arbitration
agreements -- a very common way for employers to keep legal
matters private -- and a release of claims that employees may sign
when they resign, freeing their former employer from legal
responsibility.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
whether it requires those documents, but Brooke Schneider, an
associate in the Employment practice at Withers Bergman, said
exiting employees can refuse to sign those agreements, or use them
to negotiate more severance.  Plus, those can be harder to enforce
in the case of class action claims, she said.

At least one former employee has already been trying to file a
claim.  Documents from the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing show a former worker, whose name has been
redacted from the document, filed a "right to sue" claim against
Uber.

The document says:

Beginning in late 2015, a number of female colleagues sought his
intervention regarding alleged sex-based discrimination and
harassment they were suffering at the hands of a male supervisor.
On several occasions, [redacted] raised these concerns with Uber's
HR department.  Instead of investigating the allegations of
discrimination and harassment and taking appropriate corrective
action, HR told that 'we get a lot of phone calls from employees
that we don't always act on.'

Shortly thereafter, was subjected to a retaliatory investigation,
resulting in his termination on or about March 15, 2016.

2. Recourse from a sexual assault victim

One of the most vicious accusations levied against Uber is that
executive Eric Alexander, who has since left the company, obtained
the medical records of 26-year-old woman who was allegedly raped
by her Uber driver in 2014.  According to Recode, executives had
trouble believing she was telling the truth, speculating that
instead the reported rape was an attempt by a competitor to
sabotage Uber.

She filed a lawsuit against Uber on June 15, claiming Uber has
intruded in her private affairs and defamed her.  Uber helped the
prosecution in the rape case at the time it was being heard, and
also settled a lawsuit with the woman in 2015.  CEO Travis
Kalanick publicly said at the time of the case he would do
"everything to help bring this perpetrator to justice and to
support the victim and her family in her recovery."

It's unclear what international laws and releases of claims apply
to the case, lawyers said. Either way, the suit is "just another
hit to their brand," Ms. Bischoff said.

3. Driver classification battles across the globe

Buried in an onslaught of Uber-related news was a New York ruling
that could shake Uber's business model.  Three New York Uber
drivers have been granted employee benefits by a judge, a ruling
that could extend to "others similarly situated," according to
Law360.

Uber has long argued that drivers, who can set their own hours and
own their own cars, are independent contractors.  But
New York, as well as other local regulators, have found that the
start-up exercises considerable control over the drivers, thus
treating them like employees.

While Uber headquarters might be undergoing a cultural makeover,
the same protections recommended by Eric Holder's report won't
necessarily extend to drivers if they are independent contractors,
Ms. Schneider said.  That could stoke even more contention between
executives and drivers, she said.

"I look at Uber as a workplace culture that has failed.  So now we
know, working at Uber is not always pleasant," Ms. Bischoff said.
"It's difficult, it seems to have this bro culture.  Each one of
these individual cases now looks more credible.  So yeah if they
are treating drivers poorly, there's a natural human response to
take that seriously."

Uber drivers protest the company's recent fare cuts and go on
strike in front of the car service's New York offices on February
1, 2016.

Michael Solomon, who manages freelance technology talent with 10x
Management, said that the treatment of drivers is increasingly
starting to affect the perceptions of Uber's technical talent.

"I'm not sure their exact timeline for rolling out autonomous
vehicles widespread, but one of the big selling points is they
were are making everyone a driver and creating jobs," Mr. Solomon
said.  "That's a big part of their story as the taxi companies are
going away.  Now they are completely undoing the good part. . . .
this a company that was very vocal about how good they were to
have provided them with gigs, as they rip that out from under
them."

4. Intellectual property battle with Waymo -- and a regulatory
investigation

Uber is also fighting Alphabet, Google's parent company, in court
over the alleged actions of a former employee of both companies.

Alphabet's self-driving car unit, Waymo, has sued Uber, claiming
that the ride-hailing start-up is using key parts of Waymo's self-
driving technology.  The fight centers around an engineer named
Anthony Levandowski, who was deeply involved in Google's self-
driving car initiative before leaving to found a start-up, Otto,
which went on to be acquired by Uber.

Waymo's lawyers have asserted that Mr. Levandowski stole documents
from Alphabet, and that Mr. Levandowski was already negotiating
with Uber before he left Alphabet.  Mr. Levandowski, who was fired
from Uber, has tried to stay out of the fray, looking to invoke
his Fifth Amendment rights.  But courts are adamant that the
allegedly stolen documents be recovered.

Judge William Alsup also ordered the case be referred to the U.S.
attorney for investigation of the possible theft of trade secrets,
offering no position on whether a prosecution is warranted.

"There are a whole hose of variables that the government takes
into account," Mr. Bezanson said.  "Corporate culture is one.
Tone at the top, pervasiveness of wrongdoing, how the company
responded.  Because we have so many different subject matter
issues, an overall corporate culture assessment is a good thing.
The DOJ will pay close attention to it.  There's a lot in front of
Uber at the moment.  Just because they've crossed the recent
threshold of the labor investigation, doesn't mean they're done
with it."

5. Regulatory probe into 'greyballing' & 6. FTC probe into data
collection

The U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation
into Uber's evasion of authorities last month, according to
Reuters.  The investigation will focus on a software, "greyball,"
that Uber used to stay under the radar of transportation
authorities, according to The New York Times.

Separately, Recode reported this month that the Federal Trade
Commission is inquiring into the way Uber handles its data.  All
these high profile liabilities could ultimately affect the
company's ability to raise capital and go public, Schneider said.

"All the shoes are dropping now," Ms. Bischoff said. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Detroit Families Plea to Stop Deportation
--------------------------------------------------------
Priya Mann, writing for Click On Detroit, reports dozens of Metro
Detroit families are in a state of shock on June 16 night as they
say what might be their final goodbyes to loved ones who were
arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Family members are gathering at a detention facility in
Youngstown, Ohio, hoping and praying for a last-minute reprieve
from deportation.

Kandid Cargill drove three and a half hours to see her fiance, but
due to the number of people who drove to Youngstown to see their
loved ones, she wasn't able to see him.

After five days apart, Cargill was hoping she would finally be
able to see her fiance on June 16. It's been a difficult journey
from her Eastpointe home to the correctional facility.

"Now, Mr. President, we need your help," Cargill said. "We need
you to do something about this. These people elected you."

ICE agents detained the 39-year-old father and more than 100
others on June 11 in Metro Detroit. Many are Chaldean, and their
families fear they'll be killed by ISIS if they're deported to
Iraq.

Less than a day after the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit, the
deportations have been temporarily halted. [GN]


VWR CORP: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to Avantor
-----------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. VWR CORPORATION, MANUEL A.H. BROCKE-BENZ,
HARRY M. JANSEN KRAEMER, JR., NICHOLAS W. ALEXOS, ROBERT L.
BARCHI, EDWARD A. BLECHSCHMIDT, ROBERT P. DECRESCE, PAMELA FORBES
LIEBERMAN, TIMOTHY P. SULLIVAN, and ROBERT J. ZOLLARS, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02616-WB (E.D. Pa., June 12, 2017), seeks to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which VWR
will be acquired by Avantor, Inc., through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Vail Acquisition Corp.

The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $6.4 billion.

The case alleges that Defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A that omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) VWR's financial
projections, relied upon by VWR's financial advisor Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated in its financial analyses;
(ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinion provided
by BofA Merrill Lynch; and (iii) the background process leading to
the Proposed Transaction.

The case alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act.

VWR is an independent provider of product and service solutions to
laboratory and production customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: 610.667.6200
     Fax: 610 667 9029
     E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
             mackerman@brodskysmith.com

        - and -

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


WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Final Approval of "O'Brien" Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE O'BRIEN and JOHN O'BRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WALDMAN & KAPLAN, P.A. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-07429-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order certifying the case as a class
action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on behalf
of the following class:

   "all New Jersey consumers who were sent an initial collection
   letter and/or notice from WKPA during the period of October
   13, 2014 to present, that included the following language:
   "You may contact a representative at FCI Lender Services,
   Inc., with a mailing address P.O. Box 27370, Anaheim, CA
   92809-0112 toll free at 1-800-931-2424 between the hours of
   8:00 am to 6:00 pm PST if you disagree with the Lender's
   assertion that a default has occurred or the correctness of
   the mortgage lender's. Calculation of the amount required to
   cure the default within 30 days of this Letter"."

The class action lawsuit alleges that WKPA violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, by sending consumers written collection
communications that overshadowed the Plaintiffs' and the class
members validation rights.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HCIoZHL5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          Marcus & Zelman, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue - Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712

The Defendant is represented by:

          Farha Ahmed, Esq.
          WALDMAN AND KAPLAN P.A.
          174 Nassau Street, Suite 313
          Princeton, New Jersey 08542
          P.O. Box 5162
          Largo, FL 33779


WASHINGTON: Suit Filed on Behalf of Special Education Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle Times reports that every child in Washington is
entitled to a public-school education, no matter his or her
abilities.

Special-education students are no exception, even if they are
disruptive, thanks to Washington's education and anti-
discrimination laws.

However, a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Washington in Thurston County Superior Court rightly challenges
the way these laws are being enforced in Yakima and Pasco and,
more worrisome, implies the issues could be widespread.

The lawsuit filed against the state Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction tells disturbing stories about five children
who were disciplined so much they missed a significant amount of
class time.

A 13-year-old with multiple health issues was excluded from his
Yakima school for 52 days because of agitation and outbursts but
was offered just 16 days of compensory education.  A mother pulled
her 8-year-old out of school in Yakima with medical problems
related to his gastrointestinal tract after he was punished for
taking too long in the bathroom and suspended after he attempted
to defend himself physically against bullying.  A 10-year-old in
Pasco was repeatedly sent home early, excluded from the classroom
and informally disciplined for minor infractions such as running
around the flagpole.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of special-
education students in both Eastern Washington school districts.

The courts will determine if these children, and others like them,
were illegally denied a public-school education.  But the fact
that parents and the ACLU had to file a lawsuit to fight for the
children's rights suggests something is wrong.

Districts across Washington suspend and expel special-education
students at more than twice the rate of their peers -- about 8
percent of special-education students versus about 3 percent non-
special education.

Students suspended or expelled are much more likely to drop out of
high school than those who are not, in part, because they are
simply missing too much school.

According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities, about
one-third of Washington's 147,000 special-education students drop
out of high school.  The five-year graduation rate for special-
education students is about 65 percent compared to 81 percent of
all students.

No matter the outcome of this lawsuit, discipline rates for
special education students should be more closely examined in
Washington state, with an eye toward improving educational
achievement for all.


WEST CORP: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Wyant" Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling West Corp. too cheaply through an unfair
process to Apollo Global Management, for $23.50 a share or $5.1
billion, shareholders say in a federal complaint in Lincoln, Neb.

The case is captioned, GARY WYANT, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WEST CORPORATION, TOM
BARKER, LEE ADREAN, DONALD CASEY JR., ANTHONY DINOVI, PAUL GARCIA,
LAURA GRATTAN, JEANETTE HORAN, MICHAEL HUBER, DIANE OFFEREINS,
GERGORY SLOMA, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC MOUNT OLYMPUS
HOLDINGS, INC., and OLYMPUS MERGER SUB, INC. Defendants. Case No.
4:17-cv-03081 (D. Neb., June 26, 2017).


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Cabrio & Duet Dryers are Fire Hazards, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Detroit
federal court that Whirlpool's Cabrio and Duet models of laundry
dryers allow lint to build up in an inaccessible area of the
machines, creating a fire hazard.

The case is captioned, SARA HIRST and DONALD HIRST on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-12067-TGB-DRG
(E.D. Mich. June 26, 2017).


WORLD TECH: Faces Class Action Over Drone Products Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Oregon
man has filed a class action lawsuit against a drone manufacturer,
alleging unfair competition.

Christopher Lee filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, June 2 in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
World Tech Toys Inc. and Does 1-10, alleging they made false
claims regarding the warranty of their drone products.

According to the complaint, Mr. Lee was damaged from being misled
into buying a drone product for $192.05 that was falsely
advertised.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants advertised their
drone's warranty despite having no intention of honoring their
warranty after one of the legs of Lee's drone broke off.

Mr. Lee seeks trial by jury, order World Tech Toys to engage in a
corrective advertising, actual damages, punitive damages,
statutory enhanced damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and all other relief the court grants.  He is represented
by attorneys Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon, Meghan E. George
and Thomas E. Wheeler of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in
Woodland Hills, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 8:17-cv-00955-DOC-JDE


* Judge Puts on Hold Reform of Federal Overtime Standards
---------------------------------------------------------
Margot Roosevelt, writing for Orange County Register, reports that
two weeks after the November presidential election, a Texas judge
put a hold on a sweeping reform of federal overtime standards that
would have raised the wages of 4.2 million Americans.

President Barack Obama's administration appealed the ruling. But
after Donald Trump took office in January, the appeal was delayed.

Now California and a handful of other states are moving to enact
the Obama proposal.  Their reasoning: workers have seen their pay
erode over decades as the cap on overtime wages has failed to keep
up with inflation.

In California, an Assembly-passed bill, AB 1565, would require
employers to pay overtime to salaried workers earning less than
$47,476 beginning January 1, 2018 -- the same level as the Obama
rule.

The bill will be taken up by the state Senate this month.

The pushback on worker wages opens a new front in the battle
against the initiatives of the Republican-controlled
administration and Congress by Democratic-controlled state
legislatures.

California has already passed laws designed to counter the Trump
administration's agenda on immigration, healthcare and climate
change.

The Assembly's overtime bill "is a huge victory for working
people," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the
California Labor Federation, which sponsored the legislation.

"Millions of low- and moderate-income workers have been putting in
long hours on the job without fair compensation."

The California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill on behalf of
45 industry groups, including the Orange County Business Council,
which represents the county's largest companies.

The opposition covers a broad swath of employers: restaurants,
construction firms, insurance companies, banks, health services
providers, agribusiness, hotels and landscapers, among others.

"This top-down approach to how employees are compensated is a
direct assault on small business in California," said Bryan Starr,
president and CEO of the Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce.

"We've had minimum wage increases year after year. Larger
corporations may have the ability to absorb this, but employers of
25 people or less may have to downsize or shut their doors
entirely."

Under California's current overtime threshold, the highest in the
nation, workers must be paid more than twice the minimum wage
before employers can deny them time-and-a-half pay for working
more than eight hours a day.

So under current law, with the minimum wage scheduled to rise to
$11 an hour for employers with 26 or more workers in 2018, the
overtime threshold would be $45,760.

Workers at smaller businesses, where the minimum wage will be
$10.50 next year, would benefit the most from the California bill.
Under current law, overtime will be due to anyone earning under
$43,680 at a business with 25 or fewer workers.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, California
workers' median wage last month -- with half of workers earning
more and half earning less -- was $40,920.

Had the Obama administration's rule passed, most states would have
seen a far greater impact.

California, New York and several other states have state
thresholds above the current federal level, but many states adhere
to the current federal overtime cap, unchanged since 2004.

Under that standard, which remains in effect under President
Trump, salaried workers earning over $23,660 or $455 per week --
which is below the poverty line for a family of four -- are exempt
from overtime.

Hourly workers normally get overtime, regardless of their hourly
pay.

Obama's overtime rule was prompted in part by what labor officials
say is a widespread practice by employers to re-classify hourly
workers, who must always be paid overtime, as salaried "managers"
to avoid paying more for extra hours worked.

In many cases, such as fast-food franchises or small retail
stores, these so-called managers may be performing the same work
as the three or four employees they also partly oversee.

"It doesn't matter if what you do is mostly physical work like
stocking shelves," Obama said at the time.  "It doesn't matter if
you're working 50 or 60 or 70 hours a week -- your employer
doesn't have to pay you a single extra dime."

According to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-
based think tank, an estimated 62 percent of salaried workers were
eligible for overtime in 1975 under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

By 2015, as inflation progressed, only 8 percent were covered,
with nearly every salaried worker with managerial duties
ineligible for time-and-a-half pay.

Had the federal salary threshold been indexed in 1975, it would
stand at $58,000 in current dollars, according to the institute.

In California, the proposed bill grants overtime exemptions for
executive, administrative, or professional employees "if the
employee earns a monthly salary equivalent to either $3,956 or an
amount no less than twice the state minimum wage for full-time
employment . . . whichever amount is higher."

The retention of the language tying the state's overtime to the
minimum wage means that Golden State businesses will only feel the
impact for two years until a rising minimum wage lifts the cap
beyond $47,476 a year.

California overtime law is also stricter than the federal standard
in that it requires time-and-a-half after an eight hour day, not
just a 40-hour week, as federal law holds.

AB 1565's proposed two-year overtime boost "is more symbolic than
anything," said James McDonald Jr., a corporate employment lawyer
with Fisher Phillips in Irvine.  "California's legislature is so
opposed to the current administration in Washington that it will
likely try to put back for employees whatever the federal
government takes away."

If some see the bill as a political gesture to confront the Trump
administration, however, Caitlin Vega, legislative director for
the California Labor Federation, said the two years could be
significant for many families.

"This will allow more workers to gain overtime pay, or to earn a
slightly higher salary, or to just be allowed to go home to their
family after a hard day's work," she said.

The bill, Vega suggested, might also spur more job creation.  "If
you can make your workers work unlimited hours without extra pay,
then you have less incentive to hire additional workers," she
said.

Nonetheless, she added, "AB 1565 does not require any employer to
pay any worker more.  The employer controls the hours worked and
has the absolute power to decide whether to send a worker home
after eight hours or pay them time-and-a-half for additional
hours.

"Or they can raise their salary so they are exempt from overtime
pay."

Starr, at the Irvine chamber, said he expects the bill will pass
the California Senate "which has been more progressive than the
Assembly."

But he noted it could still be vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown. "The
governor has been the voice of reason on a lot of things," he
added.

"Paying people more has got to be based on merit, not on
legislators imposing mandates from on high."


* Trump Administration Sides with Employers in Court Labor Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the Trump
administration on June 16 sided with employers in a Supreme Court
case over the rights of workers to bring class action lawsuits
against companies, court documents showed.

Reversing a position staked out earlier by the Obama
administration, which backed employees, the administration said in
a court filing it would no longer defend the position of the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that employment agreements
requiring workers to waive their rights to bring class action
claims are invalid.

The waivers compel workers to individually arbitrate disputes with
their employers rather than bring collective lawsuits with their
co-workers.

The NLRB, an independent agency in the federal government, said in
letter to the court on June 15 that its own lawyer would represent
the board in the employees' class action rights case.

It is unusual for the government to change positions in a case
already pending at the Supreme Court, and marks a sharp break from
the administration of former President Barack Obama, a Democrat,
which had originally pursued the case on behalf of the NLRB.

The NLRB currently has a Democratic majority, isolating it
politically from the Republican Trump administration.

In January the Supreme Court agreed to review three lower court
rulings, including one involving global professional services firm
Ernst & Young, over the legality of the waivers. Employers have
increasingly required workers to sign them as part of their
arbitration agreements to guard against the rising tide of worker
lawsuits seeking unpaid wages.

In June 16's court filing, acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey
Wall said the Supreme Court should find that class action waivers
are legal and enforceable under federal law. Workers that waive
the right to collective litigation cannot "escape the consequences
of that choice," he said.

Companies say the waivers allow for speedier and more cost-
effective resolution of workplace disputes. Class action
litigation, on the other hand, is harder to fight and can lead to
large damages awards.

Workers argue that pursuing their cases individually is
prohibitively expensive and, without the prospect of large damages
awards that class action litigation can lead to, lawyers will be
deterred from taking their cases.

The nine Supreme Court justices are expected to issue a ruling on
the issue in the court's next term, which starts in October and
ends in June 2018. [GN]


* Wisconsin AG Doesn't Rule Out Suit Against Opioid Manufacturers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Richmond, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel has taken the unusual
step of revealing the state Department of Justice is investigating
opioid manufacturers to see what role they may have played in
creating addicts, a day after Senate Democrats pushed him to exact
compensation from the companies.

Mr. Schimel has been on the forefront of Wisconsin Republicans'
efforts to stem opioid addiction but he has signaled that he's
reluctant to go after drug makers in the past.  Word of the
investigation could indicate a more aggressive stance toward the
companies as he heads into an election year in 2018.

Mr. Schimel said on June 15 he and a group of attorneys general
from around the country have been investigating whether drug
makers have illegally marketed and sold opioids.  He said the
investigation involves subpoenas for documents and testimony,
suggesting the probe could be a precursor to a lawsuit.  Other
attorneys general in the coalition announced the investigation on
June 15 as well, including attorneys general in South Carolina,
Alabama, South Dakota, Pennsylvania and Indiana.

Several states including Ohio, Mississippi, and Tennessee have
already filed lawsuits against opioid makers over marketing
tactics.  So have individual cities and counties.

Law enforcement officials often won't confirm or deny
investigations exist.  Mr. Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos said
the attorneys general felt it was appropriate to reveal the
investigation because Ohio filed its lawsuit at the end of May and
it was important "to inform the public and media how seriously
they are taking the opiate crisis and that they will leave no
stone unturned in solving this problem."

Mr. Schimel has become one of the public faces of Wisconsin
Republicans' efforts to slow opioid addiction, launching a public
awareness campaign and supporting bills that expand treatment and
require police to carry overdose antidote.  He also is leading a
multi-state lawsuit alleging drug manufacturer Individor of
illegally trying to extend a monopoly over Suboxone, a drug for
treating opioid addiction.

Democrats have been trying to paint him as weak on the issue as he
enters a re-election bid against Josh Kaul, a former federal
prosecutor and son of former Democratic Attorney General Peg
Lautenschlager.

They say he's trying to protect big drug companies.  They've
pointed out he told The Cap Times newspaper in December it would
be difficult to go after them for illegal opioid marketing because
their actions likely took place 15 or 20 years ago and the statute
of limitations has probably expired.  He added that Wisconsin and
25 other states won a $19.5 million settlement in 2007 with drug
maker Purdue Pharma over marketing practices for Oxycontin, an
opioid pain medication.  Mr. Schimel received a $250 campaign
contribution from Purdue Pharma last year.

Mr.  Schimel also told the newspaper, however, that the Wisconsin
DOJ was still monitoring drug makers' practices.  Mr. Koremenos
said in an email to The Associated Press that Mr. Schimel was
alluding to the investigation, meaning the probe has been going on
for at least the last six months.

During a June 14 floor session in the Senate, Democrats tried to
pass legislation that that would have required Mr.  Schimel to
consider suing the drug makers and report his conclusions to the
Legislature. Republicans shot the measure down after Majority
Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he was sure a large-scale class
action lawsuit against drug makers is coming soon and Mr. Schimel
would probably be part of it. The attorneys general began making
their announcements revealing the investigation less than 24 hours
later.

Mr. Koremenos said in his email that Mr. Schimel believes
prevention and treatment are keys to solving the opioid problem
and the state can't arrest or sue its way out of the crisis.  But
he said Mr. Schimel hasn't ruled out a lawsuit against
manufacturers.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Fails to File Claim vs. City on Time
------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, Section 810 et seq.),
before commencing an action against a public entity, a plaintiff
must present the claim to the entity within six months of "the
date upon which the cause of action would be deemed to have
accrued within the meaning of the statute of limitations which
would be applicable thereto."

In the case captioned CITY OF PASADENA, Petitioner, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; SANDRA REYES
JAUREGUI et al., Real Parties in Interest, No. B280805 (Cal.
App.), real parties in interest Sandra Reyes Jauregui and Mario
Reyes Jauregui filed a first amended complaint, alleging a cause
of action against petitioner City of Pasadena arising from Sandra
Jauregui's mesothelioma.  The City demurred to the Jaureguis'
complaint, arguing that they had failed to comply with the claim
presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act by not
presenting their claim to the City within six months of the date
of Sandra's mesothelioma diagnosis.  The Jaureguis opposed the
demurrer, arguing that their claim presentation was timely because
under the applicable statute of limitations -- Code of Civil
Procedure section 340.2 -- their cause of action never accrued.
Thus, they asserted, the six-month claim presentation period never
began to run.  The trial court overruled the demurrer, and the
City now seeks a writ directing the trial court to sustain the
demurrer.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, concluded that "the date upon which the cause of action
would be deemed to have accrued within the meaning of the
[applicable] statute of limitations" is the date on which a
plaintiff discovers or should reasonably have discovered that she
had suffered a compensable injury.  In this case, that date was no
later than the date Sandra was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Because the Jaureguis presented their claim to the City more than
10 months after that date, they failed to comply with the claim
presentation requirement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals grants
the petition for writ of mandate.

The case is CITY OF PASADENA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; SANDRA REYES JAUREGUI et al., Real
Parties in Interest, No. B280805 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated June 26, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/Kkq0QB from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: News Asbestos Court Rules May Draw Challenges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that the
new case management order for New York City's asbestos courts,
released and set to take effect on July 20, contains provisions
that both defense and plaintiffs' attorneys can either support or
loathe.

Against vehement objections from the defense bar, Manhattan
Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton's order affirms the right of
plaintiffs to seek punitive damages, which were reintroduced to
the New York City Asbestos Litigation docket in 2014, but stayed
by an appeals court pending further modifications to the case
management order.

And as for the plaintiffs, the order caps the number of trials
that can be joined at two, though three trials can be joined if
plaintiffs meet certain criteria.

Parties may appeal the order to the Appellate Division, First
Department, though as of Wednesday, attorneys on both sides said
that parties had not done so.

Moulton promulgated the order after a year of discussions with
lawyers who regularly appear in asbestos cases, but without taking
a vote to gauge consent. Additionally, the court made drafts of
the new management order available online for public comment and
held a town hall meeting in May.

Moulton explains in the order that he was not convinced that a
majority of the stakeholders involved would consent to a
management order that is "close to a middle ground."

Given the context of the matter, the judge wrote, consent is a
"legal fiction," as it is not known how the new order will work in
practice, and attorneys may later decide to change their minds as
to whether or not they consent to the order.

"As far as I can see, we will not end up with a document that
garners significant support from both sides," Moulton said in an
April email to attorneys.

Jerry Kristal, the managing attorney for Weitz & Luxenberg's
office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys who took part in the talks, commended Moulton for his
effort in balancing the interests of the defense and plaintiff
bars. But he said the new cap on joinders "plays into the hands"
of defense attorneys.

Kristen Fournier, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and
a representative for the defense bar in the talks, said asbestos
defendants, of which she said there are several hundred, are
reviewing the new management order and that it is likely some
defendants will appeal.

In addition to Kristal, the representatives for the plaintiff bar
who participated in negotiations included Jordan Fox, a founding
partner of Belluck & Fox; Charles Ferguson, group chair of Weitz &
Luxenberg's mesothelioma and asbestos practice; and Robert
Komitor, a partner at Levy Konigsberg. Brian Early of The Early
Law Firm served as an alternate.

On the defendants' side, Fournier was joined by Judith Yavitz, a
founding partner at Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau; Robert Malaby,
founding partner of Malaby & Bradley; and Peter Dinunzio, senior
counsel to Clyde & Co.

In 1996, then-Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman, the
first coordinating justice of the NYCAL docket, indefinitely
deferred all punitive claims by plaintiffs, which she said was
"tantamount to dismissal."

But in 2014, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Sheri Klein Heitler,
Moulton's predecessor as coordinating justice of the asbestos
docket, ruled that plaintiffs could seek punitive damages, which
defendants argued threw compromises between plaintiffs' and
defendants' lawyers out of balance.

In 2015, the First Department held that Heitler had the authority
to amend the management order to allow claims for punitive
damages, but stayed claims until the management order could be
modified to establish a procedure for plaintiffs to apply to
charge juries with instructions on punitive claims.

Moulton acknowledged that re-introducing punitive claims
negatively affected defendants, but noted that the order also
includes due process protections for defendants, including a
requirement that plaintiffs give notice if they intend to seek
punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that capping joinders may increase the
number of trials, but Moulton said the argument is "untested." He
also noted that in recent years judges have taken steps to limit
the number of trials that can be joined.

The order was something of a swan's song for Moulton in his two-
year tenure as coordinating justice of the city's asbestos docket;
on Wednesday, he began his new role as a justice on the Appellate
Division, First Department.

A new coordinating justice has yet to be picked, said John Werner,
the Manhattan Supreme Court's chief, but said Moulton's successor
could be named within one week.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Seeks Info From Bankruptcy Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Forbes.com, reported that Honeywell
International, which frequently finds itself sued by asbestos
claimants, is asking a federal judge to make public certain
ballots that would help it identify those who had claims against
one of the many asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

A frequent target of asbestos lawyers is seeking access to the
ballots cast by holders of asbestos claims against one of the many
companies forced into bankruptcy by the long-running litigation.

Honeywell International has interjected itself into the bankruptcy
proceeding of the successors to Chicago Fire Brick and Wellsville
Fire Brick, companies that spent a decade creating a trust that
would pay individuals with asbestos claims. On May 3, Honeywell
asked the federal bankruptcy court in Oakland, Calif., to make
those ballots public.

Those holding claims against companies are asked to vote on
proposed bankruptcy plans. Objecting to Honeywell's request is the
trustee of CFB's trust and the Pittsburgh asbestos firm Goldberg,
Persky & White.

"This court's local rules required the Plan Proponents to file
'all ballots,'" Honeywell's attorneys wrote. "Yet the Plan
Proponents failed to do so and have refused to provide copies of
the ballots to Honeywell.

"The Plan Proponents' refusal is unwarranted not only in light of
this Court's local rules, but also because the ballots are matters
of public record under Bankruptcy Code. . . "

CFB and WFB once made some products used in high-temperature
furnaces that contained asbestos and filed for Chapter 11
protection in 2001. The company's successors, CFB Liquidating
Corp. and WFB Liquidating Corp., faced more than 20,000 asbestos
claims and created a trust to pay them. As of October 2015, there
were roughly 29,000 claims asserted against the trust.

Only a report that summarized the results of the voting by those
who had claims against CFB was produced. Honeywell wants to see
the individual ballots.

It cites comments made by Judge George Hodges during a hearing in
2012. Hodges oversaw the bankruptcy of Garlock Sealing
Technologies and famously ruled in 2014 that asbestos attorneys
had been manipulating the system to maximize recovery against the
company in the past.

"It seems to me that these [ballots] are public records even in
the hands of agents. They are ballots cast in a bankruptcy case.
We use agents," he said.

"Other courts use agents just because we don't have the staff to
do it ourselves, but they are deputies and agents of the court,
and I think these are public records."

Hodges later wrote that ballots are public records in a 2012
order. In 2014, after Garlock was allowed access to trust claims
information submitted by a small number of plaintiffs who had also
sued the company, Hodges decided that plaintiffs and their
attorneys were giving one story about how they were exposed to
asbestos in the trust system while telling another story in their
lawsuits against Garlock and others.

Presumably, if Honeywell were allowed to see who has a claim
against CFB by having access to their ballots, it could check its
own litigation history for the same.

Also cited by Honeywell is former Judge Judith Fitzgerald, who had
made a similar decision prior to Hodges'. Her decision, though,
was reversed by a Delaware bankruptcy judge.

Honeywell is similarly seeking information on the asbestos
claimants in that proceeding, too.

The trustee of the CFB trust, Barry Chatz, filed his objection on
May 24, calling Honeywell's motion "curious." He noted that the
company didn't make its request until five years had passed after
the trust was created.

"Simply stated, Honeywell has no connection with these bankruptcy
cases and, perhaps for that reason, did not seek to participate in
these cases for the first 15 years that they were pending,"
Chatz's objection says.

"Given that Honeywell has not identified any pecuniary interest in
the Plan, the voting on the Plan, or any involvement with the
Trust or the bankruptcy estates of CFB and WFB, the Court should
resist Honeywell's invitation to require filing of the ballots
that were cast in 2012."

Chatz feels Honeywell is attempting to identify the diseases
afflicting 5,038 claimants.

In a short joinder, Goldberg, Persky & White supported Chatz's
objection. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 13.

Honeywell has a history of taking asbestos claims to trial.
Earlier this year, a California appeals court affirmed a Fresno
County verdict of almost $6 million against the company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eddie Obeid Left Asbestos in Former Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Taylor, writing for Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate,
reported that the owner of Eddie Obeid's former Central Coast
beachfront mansion blames the disgraced former Labor powerbroker
for the dumping of large amounts of asbestos at the property.

A major clean-up operation kicked off this morning to remove the
deadly asbestos found on the property previously owned by Obeid,
who was jailed in December for a maximum of five years for
misconduct in public office over his secret business dealings at
Circular Quay.

According to the man who bought the property on Wamberal's
millionaires row from the former Labor minister in 1996 for $1
million, the previous owner should be held accountable for the
asbestos dumping.

Eddie Obeid hosted ALP heavyweights at his former Wamberal
beachfront mansion in the 1990s.

"We only discovered the building materials illegally buried on the
property after the recent storms," Paul McCloskey, who still owns
the property, told the Express Advocate. "When we lost a good 4-6m
of landscape on the beachfront, this is what we found."

Obeid's former luxury digs at 31 Ocean View Dr -- which are now
undergoing major renovations -- was the scene of his king-making
ways in the 1990s when he hosted then-party heavyweights.

Mr McCloskey alleged Obeid left the dangerous building materials
behind after he built at the site in the 1980s.

Asbestos bags for the Wamberal Beach clean-up at Obeid's former
home today.

"Eddie thought he could get away with anything," he said.

In another explosive revelation, NSW Coastal Alliance's Pat Aiken
alleged Central Coast Council was aware of the asbestos on
Wamberal Beach a year ago.

"They were told in a report there were small amounts of asbestos
on the beach -- and likely to be more," Mr Aiken, a Save Tuggerah
Lakes Party candidate at the upcoming council election, said.

"Council will not publicly release this report, but they allowed
me to view it (after a GIPA request). It clearly says that these
dangerous materials including asbestos would be dangerous to young
children."

Council undertakes beach-scraping work at Wamberal to cover up
asbestos on Eddie Obeid's former beachfront property.

A council spokesman declined to respond to Mr Aiken's comments.

The Obeid asbestos links came on the same day as the Express
Advocate revealed the full extent of exposed asbestos on Wamberal
Beach.

Council sent a crew to the worst-affected area this morning to
remove small amounts of the asbestos, while the larger materials
were covered over in a beach-scraping process.

A council spokesman confirmed it was cleaning up "unlawfully-
placed building rubble" on Wamberal Beach.

"Additional building rubble and other material, which has been
placed across both private and public land in the area, is the
subject of further investigation," the spokesman said.

Residents have been calling for the removal of dangerous asbestos
since a super storm ripped apart Wamberal and Terrigal in June
last year.

A council truck on Ocean View Dr to take away the asbestos today.
Mr McCloskey said he was not told about council's clean-up
operation, but he was thankful council was "finally" undertaking
the long-awaited works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Waterblasters Spread Asbestos Over Home
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radionz.co.nz reported that a Kaiapoi couple wants to know who
mistakenly waterblasted their roof, spreading harmful asbestos
dust and causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.

Richard Goodwin and Donna Somervail returned home from work one
day in April and discovered their roof had been stripped clean and
that dust from the asbestos coating had been spread around their
property.

Some even made its way inside, forcing the couple to live
elsewhere while the house was decontaminated.

Mr Goodwin said he had no idea who was responsible.

"They certainly weren't there at our request or anybody else's
that would have had anything to do with the property, and clearly
they didn't really know what they were doing as far as handling
that kind of roof and dealing with the potential challenges that
asbestos might be in there."

While their insurer was picking up the cost, the job of
decontaminating the garden would come out of their pockets.

Ms Somervail said it was important the culprits were identified.

"There are a few things to think about there because there's the
exposure the staff had and also we need to look at recovering the
cost of reinstating so we're hoping that if they front up their
own insurance will help us cover some of those costs."

To make matters worse their home was burgled while the asbestos
was being cleared, the thieves swiping televisions and expensive
woodworking tools from a garage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Former Hannibal Hospital
-----------------------------------------------------------
WGEM.com reported that a deal is in place for the purchase of the
former St. Elizabeth hospital but asbestos removal and other
issues need to be resolved first, according to Hannibal City
Attorney James Lemon.

Lemon said an investment group from Davenport, Iowa, called Ales
and Co. has reached an agreement with owner Stephen Owsley to
purchase the property, located at 109 Virginia St. He said the
group wants to turn the building into a senior-living facility.

"From my understanding, there is a signed contract," Lemon said.

But Lemon said the agreement is contingent on a few things,
including the legal situation between the current owner and city
and the removal asbestos, which he said was about $200,000 worth
of work. He said the city will apply for a state grant for the
abatement, which could get the city up to $200,000 for removal.

Lemon said the asbestos issue was discovered during a recent
inspection.

"(Asbestos removal is) something the city's going to have to do
eventually, one way or the other," Lemon said.

A hearing was held as part of the ongoing legal fight between the
city and Owsley. Lemon said a 60-day extension was granted for
Owsley to allow issues preventing the sale to be resolved.

The next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 21.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Green Bay Funds to Remove Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that Green
Bay will be receiving a grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to help with its redevelopment efforts.
The grant will go towards assessments for hazardous materials like
asbestos and petroleum products.

The old Larsen Canning property in downtown Green Bay benefited as
the grant funds paid for an assessment to discover it was a
brownfield property. It's the only brownfield that has benefitted
and now it's been redeveloped into a multi-use tenant building
called the Rail Yard.

"Brownfield is basically a site that has contamination, generally
within two categories: petroleum products and then hazardous
materials," said Green Bay Development Director Kevin Vonck.

"There were a lot of old railroad track through that property. It
was an industrial site so it's not uncommon to have some
environmental challenges," said Larsen Canning property owner Paul
Belschner.

"A lot of that is made possible due to the environmental
remediation grants provided by the EPA," said Belschner. "It
dawned on us as we saw the news feed regarding the demolition of
the Mirro building in Manitowoc."

"How that the former Larsen Canning building may have been to the
same fate had we not been able to work with the city and the state
and the federal government to utilize these environmental
protection type funds, our building may have fallen victim to the
same fate," stated Belschner.

The Metreau Apartments, the KI Convention Center, the Hampton Inn,
City Deck, and City Deck Landing were all brownfields at one point
and the tax base paid for their redevelopments.

Construction workers especially need to be careful or risk
asbestos exposure. Asbestos rules and regulations must be followed
when redeveloping these properties.

Green Bay will get another EPA grant this year for $300,000 to
help the 60 or so brownfield assessments on Broadway and Velp
Avenues. The EPA isn't only helping with brownfield sites, but
also promising to clean up Superfund sites.

"It's the first step prior to formally and officially developing a
property to make sure it doesn't have any environmental pollution
in it, and if it does, how it can be cleaned up," said Chairman of
Green Bay's Economic Development Authority Cary Sikich.

According to Vonck, "This provides some funding for us to hire an
environmental consultant to go in and find out just what is there.
It's a really great way for us to start the ball rolling in some
of these more difficult properties in terms of getting a better
picture of how contaminated it is and what the burden is in terms
of cleaning that up. Just so we know you know moving forward how
much there is to do before we can start developing and generating
a tax base."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADEQ, County Ink Consent Administrative Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Wright, Esq., at Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard
PLLC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") and Mississippi
County, Arkansas ("County") entered into a June 2nd Consent
Administrative Order ("CAO") addressing alleged violations of
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission ("Commission")
Regulation 21 (Asbestos Regulations). See LIS No. 17-042.

The CAO states the County:

   . . . demolished or caused to be demolished the former Osceola
City/County Jail ("structure"), formerly located at 300 South
Poplar in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas. . .

It further provides that the structure constituted a "facility" as
defined in Regulation 21, Chapter 4. The County is deemed to meet
the definition of an "owner or operation of a demolition or
renovation activity" as defined in Regulation 21, Chapter 4.

ADEQ is stated to have received an anonymous complaint alleging
noncompliance with Regulation 21 for asbestos renovation and
demolition activities at 300 South Poplar in Osceola . Agency
personnel are stated to have contacted the Mississippi County
Judge on February 25, 2016. They are stated to have explained the
applicable regulations of Regulation 21 in regards to asbestos
inspections and demolitions.

The CAO provides that ADEQ personnel asked the County Judge if an
asbestos survey had been conducted prior to the structure's
demolition and if a Notice of Intent ("NOI") had been submitted to
the agency. The County Judge is stated to have responded that
demolition of the structure was almost complete but that the
necessary documents to correct the issue would be provided to the
agency.

The County subsequently submitted a NOI which is stated to have
included:

   * This NOI is for a demolition of the Osceola Jailhouse in
Mississippi County, Arkansas.

   * The owner of the facility if Mississippi County, and the
contact person is County Judge Randy Carney.

   * The demolition dates listed in the NOI are February 22, 2016
to February 26, 2016.

   * Wil Allen, Landfill Supervisor, is listed as the contractor.
No inspector was listed as required by Regulation 21.606(R) for
this NOI.

   * This NOI indicated that a response was "not applicable" to
APC&EC Regulation 21.606(K) requirement that an NOI include a
description of work practices and engineering controls to be used
to prevent emissions of asbestos at the demolition site.

   * The response provided no other information about the presence
or absence of asbestos in the Jailhouse.

   * The NOI contained no information to demonstrate that an
asbestos inspection was conducted prior to demolition.

The County is alleged to have failed to conduct or have conducted
a thorough asbestos inspection of the affected facility prior to
beginning demolition. Further, it is alleged that the County
failed to provide documentation that an asbestos inspection was
conducted prior to the demolition activity. These actions
allegedly violate Regulation 21.501.

The County neither admits nor denies the factual and legal
allegations contained in the CAO.

The CAO assesses a civil penalty of $2,800 which is reduced by 50
percent if the document is signed and returned to ADEQ prior to
4:00 p.m. on June 9th.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auto Industry Applauds Asbestos Ban
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Lantztada, writing for The Star, reported that Canadian
consumers and automotive technicians might be surprised to learn
that select aftermarket parts pose a serious health risk to the
technicians who work with these materials.

These items include brake friction products, clutch plates, hood
liners and other aftermarket parts made from asbestos, a known
carcinogen that has been linked to certain types of cancer and
deaths.

In 1987, the World Health Organization's International Agency for
Research on Cancer declared asbestos a human carcinogen. Asbestos
has claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Canadians since 1996 and is
considered "the top on-the-job killer in Canada," according to
Automotive News Canada.

Despite the evidence that asbestos poses a health risk, more than
$6 million in asbestos-related items are imported into Canada each
year, and asbestos brake linings and pads represented the lion's
share of these items (Statistics Canada).

The reason asbestos is used in aftermarket brake components is
because it is good at absorbing and dissipating heat (brakes cause
a lot of friction and heat), its strength, and because it is
cheaper than non-asbestos materials.

When asbestos brake pads wear out or disintegrate, the asbestos
escapes into the air. The risk to technicians is that cleaning
brake assemblies and grinding brake linings can expose them to
this potentially toxic asbestos dust.

Although auto manufacturers have eliminated asbestos in new
vehicles, the aftermarket is a different story. In Canada, it is
still legal to import aftermarket parts that contain asbestos; in
the past decade, more than $100 million worth of asbestos
automotive parts have been imported into Canada.

The good news is that in December 2016, the Government of Canada
announced that it will impose a ban on asbestos and asbestos-
containing products in 2018, a move hailed by industry
professionals, politicians, public health officials and other
stakeholders, who have long advocated for such a ban.

But since Canada has taken so long to ban auto parts made with
asbestos, I hope that our country doesn't become a dumping ground
for aftermarket asbestos parts. There are already concerns that
asbestos products imported before the ban is in place could be
sold legally.

The Trillium Automobile Dealers Association, which represents
1,100 registered new car dealers across Ontario, applauds the ban.

According to a Government of Canada statement, the comprehensive
ban on asbestos will include:

   * Creating new regulations that ban the manufacture, use,
import and export of asbestos under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999, the legislative framework that protects
people from the risks associated with hazardous substances such as
asbestos;

   * Establishing new federal workplace health and safety rules
that will drastically limit the risk of people coming into contact
with asbestos on the job;

   * Expanding the current online list of asbestos-containing
buildings owned or leased by the Government of Canada;

   * Working in collaboration with our provincial and territorial
partners to change the national, provincial and territorial
building codes to prohibit the use of asbestos in new construction
and renovation projects across Canada;

   * Updating our international position regarding the listing of
asbestos as a hazardous material based on Canada's domestic ban
before next year's meeting of parties to the Rotterdam Convention,
an international treaty involving more than 150 countries that
support listing asbestos as a hazard, and;

   * Raising awareness of the health impacts of asbestos to help
reduce the incidence of lung cancer and other asbestos-related
diseases.

As of 2014, 55 nations (including Australia, Japan and the United
Kingdom) have banned asbestos, and 16 nations have placed
restrictions on its use. Canada's decision to impose a
comprehensive asbestos ban by 2018 is a step in the right
direction in protecting the health and safety of Canadians.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peninsula Home Fined $98,350 for Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
has penalized Peninsula Home Builders, Inc. $98,150 for numerous
asbestos violations found at a residential renovation project at 8
Manton Terrace in Brookline. MassDEP had responded on September
16, 2016 to a complaint received from the Brookline Board of
Health, which had issued a stop-work order earlier that day.

MassDEP found evidence during the initial inspection of possible
asbestos-containing debris and materials scattered outside the
property that was undergoing renovation and demolition work.
During the inspection, MassDEP obtained samples and through
testing found and confirmed the following:

   * Dry, friable asbestos-containing cement shingles had been
removed from more than half the exterior surface of the residence
with portions in an open top dumpster, and scattered inside the
residence and outside on the ground throughout the property; and

   * Piping and duct work had been removed from the existing
structure and the dry, friable asbestos thermal-insulation had
been stripped off, with asbestos material found in the basement,
in an open trash can outside, as well as scattered outside on the
ground throughout the property.

"The developer failed to complete the required asbestos survey,
which -- if done -- would have indicated the wide prevalence of
asbestos-containing materials present at the site," said Eric
Worrall, director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional office in
Wilmington. "Dry, friable asbestos is a serious public health risk
that is not acceptable because the fibers can more readily become
airborne and are known to pose a danger when inhaled."

Peninsula Home Builders has agreed to fully comply with all
applicable regulations going forward and will submit a list of
properties it owns, how long it has owned them, and identify which
of those properties has undergone demolition or renovation work.
For any property with renovation or demolition work, Peninsula
will provide copies of documentation to support that all proper
contracts, bid proposals, bills of lading, manifests, and
completion certificates were obtained.

Peninsula will pay $30,000 of the penalty, and MassDEP agrees to
suspend the remaining $68,350 provided the company does not
violate any terms of the agreement. Peninsula Home Builders, Inc.
is a Massachusetts corporation located in Andover.

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe
management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills and the preservation
of wetlands and coastal resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grenfell Tower Riddled with Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------
Jon Austin, writing for Express, reported that the asbestos was
found in artex in ceilings of the individual flats, and in panels
inside airing cupboards.

The toxic substance can cause fatal lung disease asbestosis if
inhaled, and there are fears the substance fell over hundreds of
homes in low-rise flats blocks east of the now gutted tower.

The Grenfell Action Group website, which had warned about fire
safety concerns before the inferno, has highlighted the risk.

A post said: "These same forgotten households are also subject to
other hidden dangers that no-one, not a single official or media
reporter -- has made any public reference to asbestos.

"There was lots of this in Grenfell Tower, notably in the artex
coated ceilings of every apartment, and there were small solid
asbestos panels in all apartments too. "

The report said residents had previously been assured that it was
safe if not disturbed.

The report added: "These assurances were offered as justification
for a policy of avoiding the substantial cost and disruption of
removing the asbestos.

"These older coatings that contain asbestos, pose particularly
serious health hazards. Inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers can
cause asbestosis.

"The Grenfell Tower inferno has surely released large amounts of
asbestos laden smoke, dust and ash into the air of the entire
surrounding area and who knows what other toxic substances, lead
and other metals etc, may have been reduced to ash and carried by
the wind and smoke all over the neighbourhood.

"So why has no-one in authority made any public statement about
this risk to public health, or begun the process of measuring the
concentration of these deadly toxins in the air and the local
environment?"

The risk posed by asbestos in the building was also debated on
Reddit, under a discussion headed: "Grenfell Tower fire: Why did
nobody mentioned asbestos? Is it proven not to be used in the
building?"

One user posted: "I've been a member of a voluntary fire fighter
unit -- a small village with a lot of old houses.

"We have compiled a map, in which houses asbestos had been used,
in case of fire we would have to take special measurements
regarding the safety of our firefighters.

"We had (to make) special plans for containing the water used
while fighting the fire.

"This tower was built in 1974, a time where asbestos was still
used almost everywhere. I can't image that is was completly
removed in between or while doing the refurbishment.

"If there was still an amount af asbestos, you will find a large
area contaminated with it now. Does someone have some insight into
this?"

However, Public Health England (PHE) has now issued a statement on
the risks.

Dr Deborah Turbitt, health protection director for PHE in London,
said: "We know that bound asbestos, contained in building
materials such as plaster or fibre board, was present in Grenfell
Tower in ceilings and header panels inside airing cupboards.

"It is possible that very small amounts of asbestos fibres will
have been dispersed within the smoke plume but would have formed
only a small fraction of the smoke and particles released in the
fire; all smoke is toxic and any asbestos would present a minimal
additional risk to health.

"Asbestos related diseases are typically associated with a long
term workplace exposure to high levels of airborne asbestos
fibres.

"Safety officers working with teams currently on the site have
tested the air within Grenfell Tower for dust and asbestos and
have not detected any levels of concern.

At least 30 people have been confirmed dead and dozens missing,
after the 24 storey residential Grenfell Tower block in Latimer
Road was engulfed in flames in the early hours of June 14. The
number of fatalities are expected to rise.
"When work commences to clear the site there will be a system of
engineering work that will prevent any asbestos being released
from the site and a programme of regular environmental air
monitoring conducted to ensure that both contractors and local
residents are not put at any risk."

However, she said anyone experiencing ongoing breathing problems
who were near the scene should seek medical help by calling the
NHS on 111.

She said: "People who were close to the scene and exposed to smoke
from the fire may have experienced irritation to their air
passages, skin and eyes.

"Also respiratory symptoms including coughing and wheezing,
breathlessness, phlegm production and chest pain."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Vet, Former Welder Sues Over Lung Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
Navy veteran and former welder and mechanic is suing multiple
corporations, citing alleged negligence in using asbestos, causing
great damage when exposed to the productt.

Daniel Stoetzel filed a complaint on June 5 in St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against dozens of major corporations,
alleging that they wrongfully included asbestos fibers in their
products when defendants should have known that it was toxic and
harmful to individuals.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on May 9 he
was diagnosed with lung cancer and later learned that the disease
was due to his exposure to asbestos-containing products. As a
result, Stoetzel claims he suffered physical pain, mental anguish,
lost earnings and medical expenses.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate
substitutes were readily available and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions on how to safely work with asbestos-
containing products.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
compensatory damages in an amount to exceed $50,000, plus punitive
damages, and for such other and further relief that the court
deems appropriate. He is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry
Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates PC in Edwardsville,
Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC02311


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Files OSHA Complaint on Schiller Station
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McMenemy, writing for Seacoast Online, reported that a
construction worker has filed a complaint with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration claiming workers at Eversource's
Schiller Station have been exposed to mercury and asbestos.

In a letter from the office of Rosemarie Cole, area director for
OSHA in Concord, the agency states the Manafort Brothers, Inc.,
which employs the worker, has "received a notice of a safety
and/or health hazard at your worksite at 400 Gosling Road,
Portsmouth."

That's the address of the Schiller Station power plant.

The complaint alleges "employees are not adequately protected
while removing material containing asbestos and mercury,"
according to the June 12 letter.

"We have not determined whether the hazards, as alleged, exist at
your workplace and we do not intend to conduct an inspection at
this time," the letter states. "However, since allegations of
violations and/or hazards have been made, we request that you
immediately investigate the alleged conditions and make any
necessary corrections or modifications."

The worker who filed the complaint received a test result from
Portsmouth Regional Hospital stating he has elevated levels of
mercury in his body.

Martin Murray, manager of media relations for Eversource, released
a statement from the company about the issue. In it, the company
states it "engaged Manafort Brothers Inc. to dismantle retired
equipment that had been in place at Schiller Station."

"This project is related to the process of selling its generating
facilities, and has been approved and authorized by the N.H.
Public Utilities Commission," the statement says. "The work was
taking place within a sealed, contained zone. Eversource was made
aware by Manafort that ... OSHA received an anonymous complaint
regarding the potential of mercury and asbestos exposure, and that
one of Manafort's employees had also voiced concerns."

After learning about the concerns, "Manafort, working with
Eversource management, immediately stopped the work," according to
the statement.

"Further, Manafort engaged additional safety and health experts to
assess the work conditions and to determine appropriate actions to
ensure the safety and welfare of any personnel involved within the
containment area," the statement goes on to say. "Eversource has
confirmed that the air quality outside the containment area
remains safe."

Work within the containment area will not restart "until all data
is received and analyzed by the experts and any and all issues are
fully addressed," Eversource stated.

A company representative from Manafort Brothers also released a
statement. The company said it "ceased operations on the project
so that our experts and consultants could review the concerns"
raised by one of their employees, "regarding possible mercury and
asbestos exposure on the Schiller."

"Based upon all available information at this time, there is no
indication of mercury poisoning or asbestos exposure, and the
employees are all being monitored as appropriate while the experts
continue their reviews and make further recommendations," the
company stated. "The review is in the preliminary stages and the
appropriate testing of the project site and employees has been
conducted. Work on the project is anticipated to resume in the
near future."

"Mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart,
kidneys, lungs and immune system of people of all ages," according
to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA on its website
states "how someone's health may be affected by an exposure to
mercury depends on a number of factors." Those include the form of
mercury, the amount of mercury in the exposure, the age and health
of the person exposed and "how the person is exposed, breathing,
eating, skin contact, etc," the EPA states.

Exposure to asbestos can also increase someone's risk of
developing cancer, the EPA states. "In general, the greater the
exposure to asbestos, the greater the chance of developing harmful
health effects," the EPA states.

Joanna P. Hawkins, deputy regional director of the U.S. Labor
Department's Office of Public Affairs in Philadelphia, confirmed
that OSHA received a complaint.

"Thus far, the employer has been responsive," Hawkins said in an
email.

She declined to release either a copy of the complaint or the
employer's response, stating they are "not releasable."

City Manager John Bohenko said city officials were not aware of
any reported exposure at the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sues CBS, et al., for Asbestos Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing dozens of corporations, alleging failure to
protect and failure to warn individuals of the harmful effects of
asbestos.

Brenda Strang and Myron Strang filed a complaint on June 2 in St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against ABB Inc., Borg-Water
Morse Tec LLC, BWDAC Inc., CBS Corporation et al., alleging that
the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the safety of their employees working with or around the products
containing asbestos.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Myron
Strang claims he was secondarily exposed to asbestos-containing
products through his father and mother who were exposed to,
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating
from certain products of the defendants.

On Aug. 17, 2016, Myron Strang became aware that he had developed
lung cancer. As a result, Myron Strang suffered mental anguish and
medical expenses while his wife Brenda Strang has been deprived of
companionship, society and services of her husband.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how avoid inhaling the asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment for
actual and compensatory damages in addition to punitive and
exemplary damages against each defendant separately in an amount
in excess of $25,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori and
Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates PC in Edwardsville,
Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC01460


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Explosion Exposes Officers to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Baltimore police say officers
who responded to an explosion of an underground steam pipe may
have been exposed to asbestos.

Detective Jeremy Silbert said in an email that Veolia North
America, which operates Baltimore's steam pipe network, notified
police about the possibility of asbestos exposure.

Silbert said a number of Baltimore officers were among the first
responders. He says they've been informed of "necessary safety
precautions."

The explosion punched a huge hole in the street, damaged two
nearby hotels and covered parked cars in dust, asphalt and other
debris. Five people were injured.

News media outlets report that tests found low levels of asbestos
at the site.

The Baltimore Sun reports that two Maryland Department of the
Environment certified-asbestos contractors were at the scene of
the explosion Thursday.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Heirs Blame Companies for Relative's Illness
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that
three individuals are suing a number of corporations, alleging
their products and conduct are responsible for their relative's
death from asbestos-caused mesothelioma.

Fatemeh Ehsani, Poupak Pries-Shalchian and Parastou Shalchian, as
the surviving heirs of Hassan Shalchian, deceased, filed a
complaint on June 1 in St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court
against Aurora Pump Company, Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, CBS
Corporation et al., alleging that the defendants failed to
exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of the
decedent and others working with or around asbestos-containing
products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, during his
time spent working at various Air Force bases in Texas, South
Carolina and Alabama, as well as during other jobs, he was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products of the defendants. Hassan
Shalchian first became aware that he had developed mesothelioma on
Aril 25, 2016, and died Aug. 10, 2016.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how to avoid inhaling asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual and
compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
in excess of $25,000 for each count and such other relief which
the court deems proper. They are represented by Randy L. Gori and
Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates PC in Edwardsville,
Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC01448


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Claims Honeywell, et al., Liable for Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing multiple corporations, alleging they failed to
warn of the harmful effects of asbestos.

Colleen Cook and Karen Cook filed a complaint on June 1 in St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Borg-Water Morse Tec
LLC, BWDAC Inc., CBS Corporation et al., alleging that the
defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the
safety of their employees working with or around products
containing asbestos.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Colleen
Cook worked various jobs in labor and construction and they claim
she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products of the defendants.
Colleen Cook was diagnosed with lung cancer on Nov. 19, 2015. As a
result, Colleen Cook suffered mental anguish and medical expenses
while her wife Karen Cook has been deprived of companionship,
society and services of her wife.

The plaintiffs holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how to avoid inhaling the asbestos and failed to conduct tests on
the asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment for
punitive and exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $25,000
for each count and such other relief which the court deems proper.
They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori,
Julian and Associates PC in Edwardsville, Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC01448


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NH Worker Complains of Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that an Occupational Safety and
Health Administration complaint claims workers may have been
exposed to mercury and asbestos at Eversource's Schiller Station.

A June 12 letter indicates a Manafort Brothers Inc. employee
complained that workers were not adequately protected while
removing hazardous material. The Portsmouth Herald reports that
hospital testing indicates the worker had elevated mercury levels
in his body.

Eversource told the newspaper in a statement that it has stopped
work at the site and won't resume until "any and all issues are
fully addressed."

Eversource says Manafort Brothers was hired to dismantle and
removed retired equipment, which is related to Eversource's sale
of generation facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Vet, Wife Sue Dozes Over Lung Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing a number of corporations, alleging that they
failed to warn individuals of the harmful effects of asbestos.

Billy McIntosh and Nancy McIntosh filed a complaint on June 7 in
St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Advance Auto Parts
Inc., Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, AK Steel Corporation,
Allied Air Enterprises LLC et al., alleging that the defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of
their employees and others working with or around their products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, between
1955 and 1958, Billy McIntosh first was exposed to asbestos while
serving in the United States Navy as a boiler tender. He claims he
was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products of the defendants.
Billy McIntosh claims he was diagnosed with lung cancer on Feb. 8,
2017.

As a result, Billy McIntosh suffered physical pain, mental anguish
and medical expenses while his wife, Nancy McIntosh, has been
deprived of the companionship, society and services of her
husband.

The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly failed to provide warnings to people working with or
around the products, failed to provide adequate instructions on
how to avoid inhaling asbestos and failed to conduct tests on the
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment in such
amount in excess of $25,000 for each and every count, for punitive
damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and for such other
relief as the court deems just and reasonable. They are
represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW
Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC03707


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Blames Companies for Husband's Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
husband and wife are suing 3M Company, Armstrong International
Inc., CBS Corporation, Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc., et
al, alleging that they are liable for the husband's lung cancer
diagnosis due to asbestos exposure.

Donald Addington and Nella Addington filed a complaint on June 2
in St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against the defendants
alleging that they negligently manufactured, distributed and sold
products containing asbestos fibers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, in July
2014, Donald Addington and Nella Addington first became aware that
Donald Addington had developed lung cancer. During the course of
his employment, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products. He
has suffered physical and mental pain and has become liable for
large amounts of money for necessary medical care and treatment.
The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible because they
allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products
when adequate substitutes were readily available and failed to
provide adequate warnings of the dangers of being exposed to
asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$25,000 per count, plus costs of this suit and all further relief
as the court deems just and equitable. They are represented by
Laci M. Whitley of Flint Law Firm LLC in Edwardsville, Illinois,
and Jason M. Ministrelli and Erik P. Karst of Karst & von Oiste
LLP in Houston.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC01465


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brexit Minister's Asbestos Links Questioned
------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that the new Brexit minister,
Conservative MP for Wycombe, evidently has a track record of
campaigning for reform of asbestos controls.

Much of the existing legislation, which bans the use of asbestos
and controls how the substance is removed, is governed by European
Union legislation. The Unite union said that Mr Baker's
appointment as Brexit minister raises concerns that when the so-
called 'Great Reform Bill' becomes law, he will be able to use his
position to weaken asbestos laws, bypassing effective
parliamentary scrutiny.

Unite is pushing the government for 'cast-iron guarantees' that
asbestos regulations will not be diluted by Mr Baker.

In October 2010, Mr Baker asked a series of parliamentary
questions regarding asbestos. He asked the secretary of state for
work and pensions: "If he will bring forward proposals to amend
the provisions of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002
to distinguish the white form of asbestos and the blue and brown
forms of that substance."

Mr Baker also asked: "If he will commission an inquiry into the
appropriateness of the health and safety precautions in force in
respect of asbestos cement."

And: "If he will bring forward proposals to amend existing
regulations governing the safe use of asbestos cement in line with
the evidence cited in the Health and Safety Commission Paper
HSC/06/055."

The latest figures from the Health & Safety Executive for 2014
reveal that, 2,515 people died as a result of developing
mesothelioma, the incurable and fatal cancer of the lining of the
lungs, caused by inhaling asbestos.

Unite assistant general secretary Gail Cartmail said: "It is
alarming that an MP who holds such extreme views on asbestos has
been given such a sensitive position."

Mr Baker is also mentioned in a 2015 report by the Conservative
Rural Affairs Group (CRAG), having contacted Lord de Mauley the
parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for
Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) "about asbestos issues on
farms". The CRAG has long campaigned for a derogation "to allow
the re-use of end of life asbestos cement sheets on farms" rather
than the professional removal of the substance which is currently
the case.

Unite says that Mr Baker's questions and the policies of the CRAG
are in line with a well-funded pro-asbestos lobby, which argues
contrary to scientific evidence that white asbestos is safe. The
pro-asbestos group has the support of several right-wing
politicians and commentators within both the Conservative Party
and UKIP, according to the union.

Gail Cartmail added: "Following these revelations it is essential
that very senior government ministers give a cast-iron guarantee
that the existing asbestos regulations will not be weakened or
modified and the safety of workers will remain the priority. With
thousands of people dying every year, directly as a result of
being exposed to asbestos, the priority must be to ensure that the
existing safety laws are adhered to and employers who ignore this
life saving legislation are prosecuted and convicted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Risk Evaluation Scope Reveals Industry Influence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), the largest
independent nonprofit asbestos victims' advocacy group in the
United States, released a statement from Co-Founder and President
Linda Reinstein in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's "Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos" document.

"We recognize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
meeting the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act statutory deadline for releasing the asbestos risk
evaluation scoping document; however, we have grave concerns.

"The document's focus on de minimis exposure is a non-starter.
There is consensus among the World Health Organization,
International Agency on Cancer Research, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and other scientific
bodies -- including the EPA -- that asbestos is a carcinogen for
which there is no safe level of asbestos exposure.

"The scope defined in this document also fails to address the
exposure risk during transport and processing at the shipyards
where raw asbestos imports are accepted and handled.

"The chlor-alkali industry is working overtime to secure another
exemption to allow the continued importation and use of asbestos.
In January 2017, the EPA met with twelve American Chemistry
Council (ACC) and chlor-alkali industry representatives. According
to the EPA, there are three companies, Axiall Corporation, Olin
Corporation, and Occidental Chemical, who own a total of 15 chlor-
alkali plants that continue to use chrysotile-containing
semipermeable diaphragms onsite. It is incredulous that the chlor-
alkali industry continues to peddle their 'safe use' propaganda to
the EPA, the public, and their shareholders.

"Hundreds of organizations have worked for years to reform the
1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which failed to ban
asbestos or regulate thousands of toxic chemicals. ADAO holds the
EPA responsible for using the weight of evidence to evaluate and
finally ban asbestos--without an exemption for the chlor-alkali
industry. Asbestos continues to take more than 15,000 American
lives each year and hundreds of thousands around the world. Enough
is enough."

About the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is a global
leader in combining education, advocacy, and community initiatives
to prevent and end asbestos exposure. ADAO seeks to raise public
awareness about the dangers of asbestos, advocate for an asbestos
ban, and protect asbestos victims' civil rights. ADAO, a
registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, does not make legal
referrals. For more information, visit
www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

Contacts
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
Sara Tiano, 310-251-7477
Sara@asbestosdiseaseawareness.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Doubled for Australian Men
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that
this tragic history of asbestos exposure and mesothelioma is by no
means limited to the United States. In fact, in some countries the
carcinogen's impact goes far beyond what has happened here. Most
exposures that occurred in the U.S. arose from occupational
exposure, impacting people who worked with asbestos in factories,
shipyards, on construction sites and in oil refineries. By
contrast, in Australia the material was widely used as loose fill
in residential properties during the 1970s, most notably by a
contractor known as Mr. Fluffy. A recent study conducted by the
Australian National University Centre for Epidemiology and
Population Health found that men who lived in a Mr. Fluffy house
have two and a half times the risk of being diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma as those who lived in a house that did not
have the loose asbestos insulation installed.  There is also a
link between the insulation and the incidence of colorectal
cancers and prostate cancers.

The Mr. Fluffy houses have been an area of concern in Australis
for years. The insulation was used in at least 1000 homes during
the 1970s, then was the subject of a massive cleanup at the end of
the 1990s. The government has now begun a project of entirely
demolishing the homes that it first attempted to decontaminate
after finding that the homes still had substantial amounts of the
carcinogen within their sub-floors and all cavities.

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare and deadly form of cancer that is
caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. When the fibers are either
inhaled or ingested, they become embedded in the cells of the
mesothelium, which are organs that line the abdomen and lung
cavities of the body. Once the asbestos fibers become trapped in
human cells they are nearly impossible to dislodge. They
eventually cause cell death and mutations that grow into malignant
tumors.

The study only found the higher rate of mesothelioma in men living
in the homes: it is thought that women would not have been as
exposed to the asbestos because they were not as likely to have
entered the roof space of the homes where the asbestos was
located. It is notable that the study showed that the association
with living in a Mr. Fluffy house, though high, was not as high as
that found from occupational exposure.

Whether your exposure came from inside your home, at work, or from
the environment, mesothelioma is a life changing disease. If you
need any information on resources available to help you deal with
your diagnosis, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net
today. We can be reached at  1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Risk Continues to Increase
--------------------------------------------------------
Iqra Mumal, writing for Mesothelioma Research News, reported that
even though 40 years have passed since their exposure to asbestos,
workers' risk of developing mesothelioma continues to rise, new
research shows.

Individuals exposed to asbestos four decades ago are nearly three
times more likely to develop the disease than those exposed five
years ago, a risk that surpasses even that seen in patients
exposed 30 years ago.

The study, "Mesothelioma continues to increase even 40 years after
exposure -- Evidence from long-term epidemiological observation,"
was published in the journal Lung Cancer.

Asbestos is the primary cause of pleural mesothelioma, and due to
a long latency period it tends to develop decades after exposure.
Despite a ban on all forms of asbestos in the European Union,
asbestos-induced diseases have not decreased in prevalence in most
European countries.

Researchers at the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine in
Poland conducted a study to analyze the relationship between the
time since last exposure and the subsequent risk of developing
mesothelioma in a population of workers who had been exposed to
asbestos at some point in time.

To conduct this study, researchers used data gathered from 2000 to
2014 of 131 patients with pleural mesothelioma and 655 people
matched by gender and age (the control group) who were enrolled in
the Amiantus Programme, which conducted examinations for employees
who had been exposed to asbestos in Polish asbestos processing
plants.

Analyses conducted in the study showed that the risk of developing
pleural mesothelioma continues to increase even if workers' last
exposure to asbestos was 40 years ago. In fact, researchers
discovered that when compared to workers who had been exposed to
asbestos five years ago, patients exposed 40 years ago had a 2.68-
fold higher risk of developing mesothelioma.

Additionally, researchers also looked at determining the type of
asbestos which caused the highest risk of developing mesothelioma.
They showed that exposure to crocidolite -- often referred to as
blue asbestos -- was highly associated with a significantly higher
mesothelioma risk.

In fact, the risk was five times greater when workers were exposed
to crocidolite along with other types of asbestos compared to
those who were exposed to chrysotile -- also called white
asbestos, the most common form of asbestos -- alone, with no other
types of asbestos.

The researchers noted that like the results seen in other studies,
they found that the risk of mesothelioma is related to the amount
of exposure. Therefore, the greater the amount of exposure, the
higher the risk of developing the cancer. In fact, individuals
with the greatest amount of exposure were at a 50 percent
increased risk of developing mesothelioma compared to unexposed
patients.

This was also true for the duration of exposure. Patients exposed
for 40 years to asbestos were 2.79 times more likely to develop
mesothelioma than those exposed for only one year, even after
adjusting for birth year, gender, time since the last exposure,
and amount of exposure.

The authors conclude by noting that even after 40 years since
their exposure to asbestos ended, workers' risk of developing
mesothelioma continues to increase. Therefore, it is important to
follow up with workers who have been exposed to asbestos even
though decades have passed since they worked around the
carcinogen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Lead to School Renovations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Collings, writing for Burlington Wicked Local, reported that
teachers at Pine Glen Elementary School made a quick exit from the
school this summer as part of the school's flooring will be torn
up and re-tiled due to concerns about asbestos in the building.

"We will be tearing up the second floor of Pine Glen Middle School
this summer and adding new floor and tiling," Bob Cunha, the new
Burlington Public Schools director of facilities and finance said.
"Three years ago we did an abatement of the first floor and the
Department of Public Works treated it as if it was asbestos, so at
Town Meeting this year the town appropriated the money for us to
re-do the floors on the second floor."

The building was originally built in 1962, when asbestos use in
construction was common. Asbestos is a natural, fire-resistant,
durable mineral used for electrical insulation and building
insulation. Prolonged inhalation of asbestos can lead to harmful
and potentially fatal diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma
and asbestosis. Asbestos is only harmful when exposed through the
air, which can take place when flooring and walls become damaged
and cracked.

The asbestos removal is set to begin by the end of the month,
which means teachers on the second floor have to clear out their
classrooms a few days after the school year is over.

"Right now the teachers who have classrooms about 90 percent
cleared out," Cunha said on June 23. "They will come in and clear
out the rest of the stuff, which we'll put in shipping containers
located in the parking lot. We have staff and extra faculty around
to help make this as easy as possible for the teachers."

Cunha believes that the renovations will take several weeks to
complete and the school would be fully operational by mid-August.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monongalia County BOE Approves Asbestos Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAJR.com reported that after finding a high amount of asbestos in
two Monongalia County schools, the Board of Education approved one
vendor for the cleaning.

Brookhaven Elementary and Suncrest Middle Schools will be
receiving cleaning in the school from Custom Service Industries in
Huntington.

"Brookhaven has an entire building that we're going to tear down,
and to be able to tear it down we had to make sure there's no
asbestos there," said Mon. County Superintendent, Dr. Frank
Devono. "Over at SUncrest there's just four classrooms so the
scope of the work is a lot smaller. But we need to get in there
and get that out as well."

Brookhaven will torn completely down, so the bid for Custom
Services to remove the asbestos is $26,744. Over across town,
Suncrest only has four classrooms that asbestos was detected. That
bid is smaller, at $5,287.

Devono said at MHS there was asbestos discovered during the 2016-
2017 school year, so that was when other schools were investigated
to find any evidence of asbestos.

"Over at Suncrest Middle, we just knew there was some old
classrooms and there was some old tile, and rubber basing," said
Devono. "We knew that was there so we wanted to get rid of that as
well this summer."

The completion date for the cleanup is projected at the end of
July.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Hackshaw"
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the judgment absolutely
dismissing the complaint granted upon Plaintiff's stipulation in
the case captioned IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION. DORCAS HACKSHAW, & C., Appellant, and ABB, INC., & C.,
ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Respondent, No. 106 SSM 14 (N.Y.
App.), after finding that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
that the Appellate Division's reversal involved an error of law
and, therefore, this Court is bound to affirm and render judgment
absolute referring to CPLR 5615.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and
Wilson concur. Judge Feinman took no part.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 22, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/VDv1TT from Leagle.com.

Alani Golanski for appellant.

Eric R. I. Cottle for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Reverses Federal Jurisdiction Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is presented with the
appeal of Foster Wheeler Corporation from the District Court's
remand order, concluding that Foster Wheeler did not make a
sufficient showing that it had a colorable federal defense and
that, in any event, the conduct for which it was sued was not
causally connected to official authority.

The action against Foster Wheeler and other defendants was
commenced in a Maryland State Court. Foster Wheeler removed the
action to federal court, claiming that it manufactured the boilers
under a contract with the Navy and therefore possessed a colorable
federal defense of government-contractor immunity.

The record shows that during Joseph Morris' tenure as an employee
at the Sparrows Point Shipyard, Foster Wheeler manufactured
boilers under contracts with the U.S. Navy for use on its vessels.

On appeal, Foster Wheeler has showed that the Navy "exercised
intense direction and control over all written documentation to be
delivered with its naval boilers," including those manufactured by
Foster Wheeler. The affidavit of Thomas Schroppe states that
"Foster Wheeler would not be permitted, under the specifications,
associated regulations and procedures, and especially under actual
practice as it evolved in the field, to affix any type of warning
or caution statement to a piece of equipment intended for
installation onto a Navy vessel beyond those required by the
Navy." Schroppe's affidavit also describes a rigorous inspection
process and indicates that the Navy would notice and penalize any
deviation. In addition, Foster Wheeler has credibly demonstrated,
with Lawrence Betts' affidavit, that the Navy's knowledge of
asbestos-related hazards exceeded Foster Wheeler's during the
relevant time period.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that the District Court applied the
wrong standard for determining removability considering the Court
of appeals has determined that Foster Wheeler met the statute's
requirements. However, the Court of Appeals remands the case to
the District Court to make that determination in the first
instance because the court left open the question of whether
Foster Wheeler's removal was timely noticed.

The Fourth Circuit reverses the District Court's conclusion that
Foster Wheeler did not meet the substantive requirements that it
have a colorable federal defense -- the defense of government-
contractor immunity -- to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court of
Appeals maintains that Foster Wheeler has amply established a
sufficient connection between the charged conduct and asserted
official authority.

The Fourth Circuit states that permitting Foster Wheeler to remove
this case serves the overarching policy of giving government
contractors a federal forum in which to present their federal
immunity defense and thereby avoiding possible state court
hostility to the defense that could undermine federal interests.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that Foster Wheeler satisfied all
three of Section 1442(a)(1)'s requirements. It plausibly asserted
that it was acting under the Navy when it manufactured boilers;
that it possessed a colorable government-contractor defense to the
plaintiffs' claims that it allegedly failed to give some warnings
in connection with its manufacture of those boilers; and that the
plaintiffs' claims are related to Foster Wheeler's government-
directed conduct. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reverses the
district court's conclusion that Foster Wheeler did not meet the
substantive requirements of Section 1442(a)(1). Permitting Foster
Wheeler to remove this case serves the overarching policy of
giving government contractors a federal forum in which to present
their federal immunity defense and thereby avoiding possible state
court hostility to the defense that could undermine federal
interests.

Because the district court addressed only the substantive
requirements of Section 1442(a)(1) before remanding the case to
state court, it never addressed the question of whether Foster
Wheeler's notice of removal was timely. Accordingly, in view of
the conclusions, the Fourth Circuit remands this case to the
district court to allow it, in the first instance, to determine
the timeliness of Foster Wheeler's removal.

The appeals case is JANYA SAWYER, Representative of the Estate of
Joseph W. Morris; GARNETTE MORRIS, Individually and as Surviving
Spouse of Joseph W. Morris; NANCY PIKE, Surviving Child of Joseph
W. Morris; EDWARD MORRIS, Surviving Child of Joseph W. Morris;
WAYNE MORRIS, Surviving Child of Joseph W. Morris; JOANNE TRAYNOR,
Surviving Child of Joseph W. Morris, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INC., f/k/a Crane
Packing Company; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., f/k/a Owens-Illinois,
Inc.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.;
UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; SELBY, BATTERSBY & COMPANY; CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corp., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corp.; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO.; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
CO.; MCIC, INC., and its Remaining Director of Trustees, Robert I.
McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Shunk; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE CO.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Benjamin Foster
Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience
USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.,
Rhodia Inc.; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Individually and as
Successor in Interest to Champion International Corporation, U.S.
Plywood Corp.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as
Successors in Interest to Crouse-Hinds Co.; FERRO ENGINEERING,
Division of On Marine Services Company; FOSECO, INC.; WAYNE
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; LOFTON CORPORATION, as Successor-in-
Interest to Wayne Manufacturing Corporation, Hopeman Manufacturing
Corporation; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D Company;
GREENE, TWEED & CO., Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Palmetto, Inc.; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST,
Successor to the Wallace & Gale Company; CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO.,
INC.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, Ind/Successor to BestWall Gypsum Co.;
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; PFIZER, INC.; PHELPS PACKING & RUBBER CO.,
Phelps Industrial; PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER, INC.; LLOYD E.
MITCHELL, INC.; PECORA CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor
in Interest to Pecora, Inc., New Pecora Corp., Defendants, v.
GENERAL REFRACTORIES CO.; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; MANVILLE TRUST
PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST; SB DECKING, INC., f/k/a Selby,
Battersby & Co., Inc.; UNIROYAL, INC., Third Party Defendants, No.
16-1530 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 22, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/dXd6ro from Leagle.com.

Erik David Nadolink, Esq. at WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP, Denver,
Colorado, for Appellant.

Jeffrey John Utermohle, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Patrick C. Smith, John C. Ruff, DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.

William G. Minkin, Demetrios A. Karas, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G.
ANGELOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Status Report Needed in "Harris"
-------------------------------------------------
Upon review of the record of the case captioned ROBIN L. HARRIS,
Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Billy David Harris,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. AJAX BOILER, INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Case No. 1:12-cv-00311-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), Judge Martin
Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina concludes that a report is required from the
parties regarding the status of this action.

The case was stayed on September 23, 2013, based on the Notice of
Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed by Defendant Yarway Corporation.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 22, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/LYQBJW from Leagle.com.

Robin L. Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett Naman, The
Nemeroff Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Robin L. Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Roderick Scott
Marshall, Nemeroff Law Firm, pro hac vice.

Robin L. Harris, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham,
Wallace & Graham.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A. Frank Banned from Testifying in "Rockman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEFFREY ROCKMAN & SONJA ROCKMAN, Plaintiffs,
v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-
16-1169, (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District
Court for Maryland entered a judgment for Defendants Union Carbide
and Georgia-Pacific as to any claim based on Jeffrey Rockman's
kidney cancer.

Judge Bennett prohibited Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Arthur
Frank, from testifying that Mr. Rockman's kidney cancer was caused
by asbestos exposure.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Sonja Rockman have brought this action
against Defendants Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific, adopting
several claims set forth in the "Other Asbestos Cases Master
Complaint" in connection with Mr. Rockman's alleged exposures to
Defendants' asbestos containing product during three home repairs
in the summer of 1965, June of 1973, and early 1976, which the
Plaintiffs now contend have caused him to develop Mesothelioma.
Initially, this action was brought before the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, but was subsequently removed to the District
Court.

Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific have indicated to the District
Court that Plaintiff Jeffrey Rockman was diagnosed with "unrelated
stage one kidney cancer" in 2004, "ten years before he developed
mesothelioma, and eleven years before Plaintiffs filed this
lawsuit." Plaintiffs have not discussed Mr. Rockman's kidney
cancer diagnosis either in their Short Form Complaint or in their
subsequent filings in the Court. However, Dr. Arthur Frank, one of
Plaintiffs' medical experts, has testified at his deposition that
he believes Mr. Rockman's kidney cancer was caused by asbestos
exposure.

Consequently, Defendants have jointly moved for summary judgment
as to any claim based on Mr. Rockman's kidney cancer and asked the
Court to prohibit Dr. Frank from testifying "that Mr. Rockman had
an asbestos-related kidney cancer."

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

Jeffrey Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Armand J. Volta, Jr.,
Law Office of Peter G. Angelos PC.

Jeffrey Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Craig Hill, Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos, David L. Palmer, Law Offices of Peter
G. Angelos PC, Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law Offices of Peter
Angelos & Matthew Ira Blaustein, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos.

Sonja Rockman, Plaintiff, represented by Armand J. Volta, Jr., Law
Office of Peter G. Angelos PC, Bruce Craig Hill, Law Offices of
Peter G. Angelos, David L. Palmer, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
PC, Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law Offices of Peter Angelos &
Matthew Ira Blaustein, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, Pro Se.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice,
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn
C. Schlie, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice &
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Peter
Woodward Sheehan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Bruce T.
Bishop, Wilcox and Savage PC, pro hac vice, Danielle Grilli
Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage, pro hac vice & L. Lucy Brandon, Willcox and Savage PC, pro
hac vice.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Andy C.S. Efaw, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Cary I. schachter, Schachter Harris
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Paul Davidson, Sedgwick LLP, pro hac vice,
James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn
C. Schlie, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Robin Silver, Miles and
Stockbridge PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: C. Branham Admitted Pro Hac Vice in "McSwain"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina determines that Charles W.
Branham, III, Esq., is a member in good standing with the Texas
State Bar.  Accordingly, Magistrate Howell admitted Mr. Branham to
practice, pro hac vice, before the Bar of the District Court while
associated with William Marc Graham.

The case is MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually, and as Executrix of the
Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-130,
(W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 21, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/O1KM9C from Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Charles W. Branham, III, Dean Omar Branham,
LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Michelle Dean, Dean Omar Braham, pro
hac vice, Lisa W. Shirley, Dean, Omar, Branham, LLP, pro hac vice,
Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, W. Marlowe
Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William M. Graham, Wallace &
Graham.

BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Bowman White,
Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates,
LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates & Marla Tun
Reschly, K&L Gates LLP.

Crane Co. - Cochrane and Chapman Valve Co., Defendant, represented
by Gregory R. Youman, K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Marla Tun
Reschly, K&L Gates LLP & Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Crane Co. - Chempump, Defendant, represented by Gregory R. Youman,
K&L Gates, LLP, pro hac vice, Marla Tun Reschly, K&L Gates LLP &
Rebecca L. Gauthier, K&L Gates.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Bowman White, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice,
Philip C. Reid, von Briesen & Roper, S.C., pro hac vice & Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Flowserve Corporation - Byron Jackson Pump Company, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David
Speziali, Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins, pro hac vice, Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff, John A. Heller, Sidley Austin,
LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy E. Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP & Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Individually and as successor to Kennedy Valve
Manufacturing Co., Inc. formerly known as Grinnell Corp formerly
known as ITT Grinnell Corp, Defendant, represented by William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch,
Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Morgan" P.I. Suit Remanded to La. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. DeGravelles for the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana issued an order remanding the case
captioned CURTIS D. MORGAN, v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., Civil
Action No. 17-269-JWD-UNA, (M.D. La.), to the 18th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana.

On February 23, 2017, Mr. Morgan filed a Petition for Damages in
the 18th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville. Mr.
Morgan named Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (f/k/a Northrup
Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc.), J.
Melton Garrett, Albert L. Bossier, Jr., and Lamorak Insurance
Company, in its capacity as alleged insurer of Avondale
Industries, Inc., and its alleged executive officers, as
Defendants, among others.

Earlier in the case, Mr. Morgan was deposed for an extended period
of time beginning on March 9, 2017, and counsel for Avondale began
questioning Mr. Morgan on March 10, 2017, and later continued on
March 20, 2017. Avondale received a link to the deposition
transcript on March 28, 2017.

On April 27, 2017, Avondale filed a notice of removal to the
District Court under the federal officer removal statute -- thirty
days after receiving the transcript and thirty-eight days after
Avondale questioned Mr. Morgan about his time on the USS
Huntsville.

Thus, the key question before the District Court is whether the
phrase "within thirty days" includes only receipt of a transcript
or whether it can also include receipt of information heard orally
at the deposition.

The District Court joined the majority of other courts considering
this issue. The District Court found most persuasive the case of
Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. Partnership, 194 F.3d 1072 (10th
Cir. 1999).  Huffman recognized that "the removal period commences
with the giving of the testimony, not the receipt of the
transcript," and the case specifically held that a plaintiff's
"deposition testimony triggered the thirty-day period of
removability." The District Court concluded that the 30-day period
for removal commences to run from the date of the deposition
rather than the day the deposition transcript is received. As
Avondale failed to do so, removal was untimely.

A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated June 21, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/MDNemZ from Leagle.com.

Curtis D Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by J. Burton LeBlanc, IV,
Baron & Budd, P.C..

Curtis D Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher C. Colley,
Baron & Budd, P.C., David Ryan Cannella, Baron & Budd, P.C. &
Jeremiah Spencer Boling, Barron & Budd, P.C..

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary A.
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP,
Christopher T. Grace, III, Blue Williams LLP, Daphne Marie
Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Katie
F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Laura Michelle Gillen,
Blue Williams, L.L.P., Michael Scott Minyard, Lee, Futrell &
Perles LLP, Michelle Andrina Beaty, Blue Williams LLP & Richard M.
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

J. Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Katie F.
Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Lee,
Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

Albert Bossier, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Katie F.
Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Lee,
Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie H. Baglio,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC, Douglas R. Elliott,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC & Margaret Moran Joffe,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis
Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C., Ernest G.
Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C., Francis
Xavier DeBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC,
Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC &
Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J. Hainkel, III,
Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown,
Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. &
Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
J. Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelsey Anne Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelsey Anne Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC, Blaine A. Moore,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey M. Burg, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington Kiefer &
Sommers.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie
Morain Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill LLP, Jennifer H.
McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac,
Willngham, Fultz & Cougill LLP.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP & William C.
Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larman, Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey McNamara Hall Larmann & Papale LLC.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Simeon
B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard,
Carey Austin Holliday, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard
& Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C.,
Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C.,
Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
L.L.C..

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Darryl J. Foster,
Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC & David E. Redmann, Jr.,
Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC.

CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC, Defendant, represented by Barbara Lee
Arras, Phelps Dunbar, Patrick A. Talley, Jr., Phelps Dunbar LLP &
Jeffrey A. Clayman, Phelps Dunbar LLP.

Wyeth Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Erin Fury Parkinson,
McGlinchey Stafford, Jose L. Barro, III, McGlinchey Stafford &
Shannon Suggs Sale, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra
Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Shell Chemical LP, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra
Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by James M. Garner,
Sher, Garner, Cahil, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Christopher T.
Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert & Eric
James Blevins.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Gayla M. Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan &
Jarman, Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean
Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M.
Anding, Kean Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP,
Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller
LLP.

EPEC Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra Elise
Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

El Paso Energy E.S.T. Company, Defendant, represented by Gayla M.
Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman,
Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP,
Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean
Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E.
Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Entergy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services, Inc..

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services, Inc..

Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services, Inc..

Liberty Mutual Insurance company, Defendant, represented by Kaye
N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC, Blaine A. Moore,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey M. Burg, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington Kiefer &
Sommers.

The Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Simeon
B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard &
Carey Austin Holliday, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Ray Brooks, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra Elise
Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Douglas
Gray, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Etienne Francis
Rene, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa Desormeaux Fuller,
Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham, Forman Watkins &
Krutz & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.

Texaco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melissa Desormeaux Fuller,
Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Chevron Oronite Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Douglas Gray, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Etienne
Francis Rene, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa Desormeaux
Fuller, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham, Forman
Watkins & Krutz & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman Watkins & Krutz,
LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra Elise
Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator and Holinga,
APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga APLLC, Erin Percy Tadie, BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR
& HOLINGA, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco
Viator & Holinga, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator and Holinga, APLLC.

Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Darryl J. Foster,
Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC & David E. Redmann, Jr.,
Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC.

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

Georgia Pacific Consumer Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented
by John J. Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., Benjamin M. Castoriano, Frilot, Partridge, LC, James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long, Frilot
LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot LLC.

Turner Industries Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cynthia
Cleland Roth, Blue Williams, LLP & Paul D. Palermo, Blue Williams,
LLC.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F.
Drew, Adams & Reese.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator and Holinga,
APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga APLLC, Erin Percy Tadie, BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR
& HOLINGA, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco
Viator & Holinga, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator and Holinga, APLLC.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J. Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long, Frilot
LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot LLC.

Bechtel Power Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long,
Frilot LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-
Martin, Frilot LLC.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thorne
D. Harris, III, Thorne D. Harris, III, Attorney at Law.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Benjamin M. Castoriano, Frilot, Partridge, LC, James H. Brown,
Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long, Frilot LLC,
Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot LLC.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., Defendant, represented by Simeon
B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard &
Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Glenn G.
Goodier, Jones Walker LLP, Hansford Perdue Wogan, Jones Walker LLP
& William P. Wynne, Jones Walker LLP.

Aecom Energy and Construction, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay
Barnes Baxter, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Lone Star Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
H. Hebert, Rabalais & Hebert.

Lou-Con Inc., Defendant, represented by Paula M. Wellons, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe & Desiree W. Adams, Taylor, Wellons, Politz
& Duhe, APLC.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel M. Rosamond, III, Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC & Adam
D. deMahy.

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Defendant, represented by
Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C..

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Cory
R. Cahn, Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy
Services, Inc..

Gulf Engineering Company, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by H. Philip Radecker, Jr., Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
LLC, Lawrence G. Pugh, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
LLC & Shelley L. Thompson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas & Radecker, LLC.

Ray Brooks, Cross Claimant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra Elise
Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Gary A. Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher T. Grace, III, Blue Williams LLP,
Daphne Marie Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, John M. Futrell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, Katie F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Laura Michelle Gillen, Blue Williams, L.L.P., Michael Scott
Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP, Michelle Andrina Beaty, Blue
Williams LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

J. Melton Garrett, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Gary A.
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, Katie F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael
Scott Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles.

Albert Bossier, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Gary A. Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
Katie F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott
Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles.

Boland Marine & Manufacturing Company, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Cary A. Des Roches, Law Office of Cary A. Des
Roches.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary A. Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher T. Grace, III, Blue Williams LLP,
Daphne Marie Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, John M. Futrell, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, Katie F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Laura Michelle Gillen, Blue Williams, L.L.P., Michael Scott
Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP, Michelle Andrina Beaty, Blue
Williams LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

J. Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary A. Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
Katie F. Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott
Minyard, Lee, Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles.

Albert Bossier, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary A. Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, John M. Futrell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, Katie F.
Wollfarth, Lee Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard, Lee,
Futrell & Perles LLP & Richard M. Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thorne D. Harris, III, Thorne D. Harris, III, Attorney at Law.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jamie H.
Baglio, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC, Douglas R.
Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC & Margaret
Moran Joffe, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC.

BASF Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra
Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C.,
Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, L.L.C.,
Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
L.L.C..

Bechtel Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long,
Frilot LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-
Martin, Frilot LLC.

Bechtel Power Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long,
Frilot LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-
Martin, Frilot LLC.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John J. Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Barbara Lee Arras, Phelps Dunbar, Patrick A. Talley, Jr., Phelps
Dunbar LLP & Jeffrey A. Clayman, Phelps Dunbar LLP.

Chevron Oronite Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy Douglas Gray, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Etienne Francis Rene, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Melissa
Desormeaux Fuller, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham,
Forman Watkins & Krutz & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
Douglas Gray, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Etienne Francis
Rene, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Melissa
Desormeaux Fuller, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham,
Forman Watkins & Krutz & Michelle Miller Roy, Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP.

Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Glenn G. Goodier, Jones Walker LLP, Hansford Perdue Wogan, Jones
Walker LLP & William P. Wynne, Jones Walker LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David Mark
Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator and Holinga,
APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga APLLC, Erin Percy Tadie, BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR
& HOLINGA, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco
Viator & Holinga, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator and Holinga, APLLC.

EPEC Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra
Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

El Paso Energy E.S.T. Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gayla M. Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan &
Jarman, Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean
Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M.
Anding, Kean Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP,
Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller
LLP.

Entergy Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Cory R. Cahn,
Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services, Inc..

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Cory R.
Cahn, Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services,
Inc..

Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Cory R.
Cahn, Entergy Services, Inc. & W. Scott Brown, Entergy Services,
Inc..

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David
Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator and Holinga,
APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga APLLC, Erin Percy Tadie, BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO, VIATOR
& HOLINGA, APLLC, John Allain Viator, Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco
Viator & Holinga, Katie Dampier Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga & Lexi T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator and Holinga, APLLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John J.
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelsey Anne Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

Georgia Pacific Consumer Operations, LLC, Cross Defendant,
represented by John J. Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin M. Castoriano, Frilot, Partridge,
LC, James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine
Long, Frilot LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Frilot LLC.

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

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC, Blaine A. Moore,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey M. Burg, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington Kiefer &
Sommers.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers LLC, Blaine A.
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey M. Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington
Kiefer & Sommers.

Monsanto Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Darryl J.
Foster, Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC & David E. Redmann,
Jr., Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC.

Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by James M.
Garner, Sher, Garner, Cahil, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Christopher T. Chocheles, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert & Eric James Blevins.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
John J. Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., Benjamin M. Castoriano, Frilot, Partridge, LC, James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot, Partridge, LC, Kelly Lorraine Long, Frilot
LLC, Kelsey Anne Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Frilot LLC.

Pharmacia Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Darryl J.
Foster, Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC & David E. Redmann,
Jr., Bradley Murchison Kelly & Shea LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jamie
Morain Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill LLP, Jennifer H.
McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac,
Willngham, Fultz & Cougill LLP.

Riley Power, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Arthur Wendel Stout, III,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP &
William C. Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles.

Shell Chemical LP, Cross Defendant, represented by Gayla M.
Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman,
Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP,
Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean
Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E.
Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Gayla M.
Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman,
Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP,
Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean
Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E.
Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Cross Defendant, represented by Kathleen
F. Drew, Adams & Reese.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larman,
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey McNamara Hall Larmann &
Papale LLC.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented
by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan &
Jarman, Alexandra Elise Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit,
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean
Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M.
Anding, Kean Miller LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP,
Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller
LLP.

The Travelers Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard, Carey Austin Holliday, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard & Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard.

The Travelers Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard & Carey Austin Holliday, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin
& Hubbard.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard & Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin &
Hubbard.

Turner Industries Group, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by
Cynthia Cleland Roth, Blue Williams, LLP & Paul D. Palermo, Blue
Williams, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
L.L.C., Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
L.L.C., Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker
& Carey, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker
& Carey, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, L.L.C..

Wyeth Holdings LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Fury
Parkinson, McGlinchey Stafford, Jose L. Barro, III, McGlinchey
Stafford & Shannon Suggs Sale, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC.

Ray Brooks, Cross Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla, Kean,
Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Alexandra Elise
Rossi, Kean Miller LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller LLP, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller
LLP, Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Robert E. Dille,
Kean Miller LLP & Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Suit vs. AT&T Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina issued an order granting the Parties'
Joint Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant AT&T Corp. without prejudice, in the case
captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-
cv-00157-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 21, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/rXI11M from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart J.
Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice &
Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Stuart J. Purdy,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Purdy Admitted Pro Hac Vice in "Moore"
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina has admitted Stuart J.
Purdy, Esq., to practice, pro hac vice, in the case captioned
HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL-
LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-157, (Dist. Ct.,
W.D.N.C.) while associated with Janet Ward Black, Esq.  The Court
finds that Mr. Purdy is a member in good standing with the
California State Bar.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 21, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/iPiiO7 from Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart J.
Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice &
Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Stuart J. Purdy,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Thrash" to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case captioned JOSEPH THRASH, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIRRUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendants,
No. 17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Judge Tigar concluded that Defendants The Boeing Company, United
Technology Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company have at least a colorable
government-contractor defense as they were able to establish the
causal nexus between Plaintiffs' claims and the acts performed by
Defendants under the direction of the United States government.

Plaintiff Joseph Thrash alleged that he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in September 2016, and was exposed to asbestos while
he worked on B-52, C-141, and C-5 airplanes in the United States
Air Force from 1975 through the 1980's and while doing automotive
work at various locations.

The Plantiffs originally filed this case in Alameda County
Superior Court. On March 20, 2017, Boeing removed the case to
federal court. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants UTC, Lockheed,
and Goodyear filed notices of joinder in Boeing's removal notice.

In their Motion to Remand, the Plaintiffs argued that the
Defendants must attach evidence to their notice of removal to
establish a "colorable" defense. Although the Plaintiffs contested
the truth of the Defendants' factual allegations, Plaintiffs,
however, did not submit evidence outside the pleadings in support
of their Motion to Remand.

The Defendants submitted expert affidavits and provided sufficient
evidence showing that: (a) the United States government exerted
direct and detailed control over their design and manufacture of
these products, and (b) the United States military was directly
involved in the preparation of technical manuals and warning
labels, that the military may have rejected any attempt by the
Defendants to include additional asbestos-related warnings, and
that the military knew at least as much about the dangers of
asbestos exposure as the Defendants.

In addition, Defendants Boeing, Lockheed, and Goodyear each
additionally asserted the defense of derivative sovereign
immunity. However, the Court did not address the parties'
arguments regarding the derivative sovereign immunity defense
anymore since the Court had already found that the Defendants have
each a colorable federal contractor defense.

A full-text copy of the Order dated June 20, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/ys4G8o from Leagle.com.

Joseph Thrash, Plaintiff, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C..

Joseph Thrash, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Allen Green, Weitz
& Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C..

Chez Thrash, Plaintiff, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz
& Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. &
Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C..

Cirrus Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward Eldon
Hartley, Hassard Bonnington LLP & Barry Nathan Endick, Hassard
Bonnington LLP.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark
Beckley, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Brent Marshall Karren,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Clark, Glazier Yee LLP, Deborah Maria Parker, Glazier Yee
LLP, Guy P. Glazier, Glazier Yee LLP & Laura Patricia Yee, Glazier
Yee LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin
Peregrino Ruiz, Tucker Ellis LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Pietrykowski, Gordon & Rees LLP, Megan Feeney Clark,
Gordon & Rees LLP & Melissa Rose Badgett, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Bo W. Kim,
Perkins Coie LLP & David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP.

Rohr, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Henkel Corporation, individually and as s-i-i to DEXTER CORP.,
DEXTER HYSOL AEROSPACE LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison
Elizabeth Mullings, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Florence
Anne McClain-Meza, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W. Gatt, Leader & Berkon LLP &
Ketul Dilip Patel, Leader & Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, remains a defendant in personal injury suits
related to asbestos exposure, 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there
were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C
on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material
adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been
forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly
or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali
Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is
named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land;
however, there can be no assurance in that regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jzVE8J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Insurance Talks Continues at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, is still pursuing discussions with Fireman's
Fund Insurance Corporation regarding insurance coverage on the
asbestos lawsuits that the Company is facing, 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 February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C
Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those
policies for asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim,
Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to
pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever
reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the
policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's
Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land
is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jzVE8J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Still Defends A&F Lawsuit at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
still defends itself against the insurance coverage lawsuit filed
by American & Foreign Insurance Company, 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 February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center.  No other purported party was
served.  In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its
attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by
D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled
to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it
has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff.  D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim.  D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend.  In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered.  In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali
Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered
by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance
policy at issue in this lawsuit.  In June 2007, the parties
settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of
US$1,618,000.  Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land
in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.  Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.  In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients
with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants.  While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jzVE8J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Ongoing at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay remains pending in the bankruptcy case of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to Kaanapali's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017.  The bankruptcy court has previously lifted the stay in
2015, but the decision was reversed by the district court in 2016.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay
in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has
as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other
things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of
both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United
States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires
consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit
certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy
of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.
Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court
failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to
liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims
remained subject to the stay.  The district court remanded the
case for further proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such
further proceedings on the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in
pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and
D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies
are concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the
form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of
resolution of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's
Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali's various and future
insurance claims.  Kaanapali may consider entering into such
discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will
take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in
whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jzVE8J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries are still facing
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes containing asbestos, 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.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named
defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused
by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's
that contained asbestos.

"WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-
of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xEZnD3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Faces Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation still defends itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
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.

IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number
of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/485WKn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Estimates $37MM Liability at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates US$37.0 million potential liability
for asbestos-related claims as of March 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company's subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other
things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers'
compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental
matters.  The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is
consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for costs associated with such matters when
liability is probable and those costs are capable of being
reasonably estimated.  Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the
range of possible loss or recovery, based upon current
information, management believes the eventual outcome of these
unresolved legal actions, either individually or in the aggregate,
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters relating to the
Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.
The indemnity obligations relating to the matters are subject,
together with indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to
an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an
amount in excess of US$900 million.  The following paragraphs
summarize the most significant actions and proceedings:

     * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA").  Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex.  The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site.  The relief sought by
the USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant.  All previously pending
property damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company
related to the Site have been settled or dismissed.  Pursuant to
its indemnity obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company
in known matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the
costs to date.

     * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined.  To
date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the
costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of
these matters.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company
with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos
exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend
and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

"Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to
asbestos litigation.  As of March 31, 2017, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 18,000
claims.  Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$37.0 million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$28.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$37.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims and increased by US$5.0 million from
March 31, 2016.  There are inherent uncertainties involved in
estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement
costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement
initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ from the
estimate and could be substantial.  The liability for the
asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within
the consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2017, is
approximately US$242.9 million, and believes that all current
claims are covered by insurance.  However, principally as a result
of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance
carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first US$166.9 million of
aggregate liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$37.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that US$242.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed US$242.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Had US$6.2MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its asbestos-related
aggregate liability including related legal costs to US$6,232,000,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2017.

Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company's estimation of its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles approximates US$6,232,000, which has been reflected as
a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of March
31, 2017.

"Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.  In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,700,000 and US$7,400,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March
31, 2017.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$6,232,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2017.  The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation.  This liability will fluctuate
based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will
be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program.  Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12
months.  Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.
When the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a
gain will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is
recovered."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JH76lQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Continues to Defend Claims at April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is still facing asbestos claims
related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years.  In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities.  In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

"We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our
policy to defend against them vigorously.  Historically, the
actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any
year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.  It is possible that the number of these claims will
continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos
related claims could become significant in the future."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/D7KiXK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PQ Group Holdings Had $537K Reserves at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PQ Group Holdings Inc. recorded a reserve of US$537,000 for costs
related to asbestos removal and insulation replacement initiatives
as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form S-1 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2017.

The Company states, "On May 4, 2016, we consummated a series of
transactions (the "Business Combination") to reorganize and
combine the businesses of PQ Holdings Inc. ("PQ Holdings") and Eco
Services Operations LLC ("Eco") under a new holding company, PQ
Group Holdings Inc. ("PQ Group Holdings" or "the "company"),
pursuant to a reorganization and transaction agreement, dated
August 17, 2015, as amended, by and among PQ Group Holdings, PQ
Holdings, PQ Corporation, Eco, Eco Services Holdings LLC, Eco
Services Group Holdings LLC and certain investment funds
affiliated with CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC (now known as CCMP
Capital Advisors, LP; "CCMP").  We refer to the business of PQ
Holdings prior to the Business Combination as "legacy PQ" and the
business of Eco prior to the Business Combination as "legacy Eco."

"As part of the Business Combination, the Company acquired a
manufacturing facility at Warrington, United Kingdom.  Asbestos-
containing building material is present at the site, and asbestos
removal and insulation replacement initiatives are underway.  As
of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company has recorded
a reserve of US$537,000 and US$532,000, respectively, for costs
related to this program."

A full-text copy of the Form S-1 is available at
https://is.gd/6DIqSn





                         *********


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  * * *